PS3 Graphics capability more powerful than high end PC video cards?

[Easy Rhino]

Sony seemed more interested in winning the HD war than supporting its titles. Thats why for me Sony failed. If only they had taken some stuff off, they could really compete more, that box has too much stuff inside that's never even used to its full potential. Now compare that to the 360, which is cheaper to manufacture etc. They should have invested more in games.

sony doesnt care about making money on the ps3. they used it as a tool to push blu-ray where the REAL money is.

 

[phanbuey]

Well then I wonder why ATI and Nvidia will squeeze their balls to do blistering performance graphics cards and then all the games are developed with great disappointment only for the filthy consoles ???? WHY ????

Alan wake cancelled and who knows how many other beautiful games follow...

Because, in the end... cell cant keep up with modern GFX cards - sure, the SP's can render AA smoother than 16X - but can they tesselate? do they have the next generation features? 3d Glasses coming to PS3... and nvidia made the gfx chip. HMMM...

I see one of two things happeneing 1) sony will design a console that is BETTER than PC - can use controls other than analog sticks, and has no lag and better graphics, and boom... PC is out.

or 2) PC and consoles will converge into a single development platform, and consoles will be nothing but specially purposed PC's for gaming. I can see this happening with microsoft and not so much sony.

 

[HookeyStreet]

sony doesnt care about making money on the ps3. they used it as a tool to push blu-ray where the REAL money is.

Agreed. Bluray won the High Def media war (mainly because MS didnt make HD-DVD standard in the 360) and thats all that matters to them (SONY)

 

[theonedub]

your right lol the 360 upscales rendered video in by the xenos itself

the ps3 i don't know about.

Its the same way for the PS3, you don't ever see your TV signal/source information say 1024x600 when you boot up MW2 or any other game for that matter, do you? Of course not. Its all done by the console, the only resolution a console will output are 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i, 1080P- thats it.

As far as scaling on a TV- if you have the output set to 720P because thats the supported res of the game, but you have a 1080P set, the TV will be responsible for scaling the 720P image to the 1080P screen res. Again though, its scaling from the output resolution of the console, not the rendered res.

Thats all.

 

[AphexDreamer]

In regards to the first few posts comparing games from 360 and PC to PS3.

Your missing the point. Those games undoubtedly will look slightly better because they were coded to use the GPU more so.

You have to look at games like Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Flower and GOD of War III and compare but you won't have a anything really smiler to compare to so its much harder to make a comparison.

 

[KainXS]

I never thought of that onedub all I remember is simply picking 720p or 1080p in my 360's options

However, in Uncharted 2, the game utilizes 100 percent of the SPUs and very little of the GPU.

One thing I would like to know more about is how they say in uncharted 2 they use almost entirely the cpu and almost none of the gpu, as I remember trying to run games on cpu back in the day it was almost entirely like cutting performance by a factor of like at least 10 . . . and even now it still happens like every time even compared to really old gpu's, can someone explain this to me . . . . . could the cell be that powerful, I don't get it.

If the cell can act as a better gpu then I don't see why sony didn't realize this in the first place, all I can think of is they wanted to make it easier for developers right.

unless the games were build more on effects that utilize more cpu power that is.

anyone also know what resolution uncharted 2 is natively


also, the frame buffer of the cpu and gpu are linked in the ps3 right.

 

[AphexDreamer]

I never thought of that onedub all I remember is simply picking 720p or 1080p in my 360's options



One thing I would like to know more about is how they say in uncharted 2 they use almost entirely the cpu and almost none of the gpu, as I remember trying to run games on cpu back in the day it was almost entirely like cutting performance by a factor of like at least 10 . . . and even now it still happens like every time even compared to really old gpu's, can someone explain this to me . . . . . could the cell be that powerful, I don't get it.

If the cell can act as a better gpu then I don't see why sony didn't realize this in the first place, all I can think of is they wanted to make it easier for developers right.

unless the games were build more on effects that utilize more cpu power that is.

anyone also know what resolution uncharted 2 is natively


also, the frame buffer of the cpu and gpu are linked in the ps3 right.

http://g4tv.com/videos/41532/Uncharted-2-Tech-Specs/

You see at least when a game is exclusive on a ps3 you know its exclusive cause it just can't be done on anything but the PS3. Unlike Halo 3 which Microsoft just keeps on 360 for marketing reasons. Just one of many examples of BS exclusives.

 

[KainXS]

http://g4tv.com/videos/41532/Uncharted-2-Tech-Specs/

You see at least when a game is exclusive on a ps3 you know its exclusive cause it just can't be done on anything but the PS3. Unlike Halo 3 which Microsoft just keeps on 360 for marketing reasons. Just one of many examples of BS exclusives.

i see what your talking about, makes me kinda change my mind on the ps3 becoming old by 2012 though, when both systems have been fully hacked it would be nice to see a homebrew app that benchmarks both of them.

 

[phanbuey]

http://g4tv.com/videos/41532/Uncharted-2-Tech-Specs/

You see at least when a game is exclusive on a ps3 you know its exclusive cause it just can't be done on anything but the PS3. Unlike Halo 3 which Microsoft just keeps on 360 for marketing reasons. Just one of many examples of BS exclusives.

so true... standards will always proprietary.

PPL say how many more games there are on the ps3 or how it can do more than 16x aa... but how many of those games actually do that ? less than a handful... whereas the rest of them look like sh*t compared to what they could because theyre just ports from another console.

My biggest gripe with consoles is that they are often the limiting factor in PC games... devs make a game for a platform that utilizes 50% of the features PC offers, and then just offer slightly sharper textures and higher rez and call it a day.

and you "LEAVE BRI... err... CONSOLES ALONE!!! ALL YOU DO IS TAKE..." peeps dont get why PC gamers dislike consoles. Look at crysis, and crysis II. :/

 

[AphexDreamer]

so true... standards will always proprietary.

PPL say how many more games there are on the ps3 or how it can do more than 16x aa... but how many of those games actually do that ? less than a handful... whereas the rest of them look like sh*t compared to what they could because theyre just ports from another console.

My biggest gripe with consoles is that they are often the limiting factor in PC games... devs make a game for a platform that utilizes 50% of the features PC offers, and then just offer slightly sharper textures and higher rez and call it a day.

and you "LEAVE BRI... err... CONSOLES ALONE!!! ALL YOU DO IS TAKE..." peeps dont get why PC gamers dislike consoles. Look at crysis, and crysis II. :/

Well Cry Engine 3 is designed as a "No Port" Engine. Meaning when they code the game one time its coded for PC PS3 and Xbox all at the same time. This is how all game engines should be, then they can continue optimizing it and everyone gets a good game for each console/PC. This is probably the first of many future game engine that will start doing this.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/02/14/crysis-2-there-is-no-port/

 

[kurosagi01]

so true... standards will always proprietary.

PPL say how many more games there are on the ps3 or how it can do more than 16x aa... but how many of those games actually do that ? less than a handful... whereas the rest of them look like sh*t compared to what they could because theyre just ports from another console.

My biggest gripe with consoles is that they are often the limiting factor in PC games... devs make a game for a platform that utilizes 50% of the features PC offers, and then just offer slightly sharper textures and higher rez and call it a day.

and you "LEAVE BRI... err... CONSOLES ALONE!!! ALL YOU DO IS TAKE..." peeps dont get why PC gamers dislike consoles. Look at crysis, and crysis II. :/

lol ps3 can do 16x AA?? now thats load of bs in my opinion i mean if the ps3 and 360 has so much better graphics why doesn't it use V-sync...surely if its so much better than PC is should be able to do it easily but no you see lot of image tear in games yeah i have seen lots of lines around the screen because of image tear.

 

[digibucc]

lol ps3 can do 16x AA?? now thats load of bs in my opinion i mean if the ps3 and 360 has so much better graphics why doesn't it use V-sync...surely if its so much better than PC is should be able to do it easily but no you see lot of image tear in games yeah i have seen lots of lines around the screen because of image tear.

if you had read the article, it clearly states that devs for ps3 have been using a gpu that shouldn't have even been in the system. they are not taking advantage of the capabilities it(PS3, it's SPUs) offers, is why quality is not to the level it COULD BE.

 

[vbx]

Gaming computer 1k plus

PS3 $300

decent computer to do other stuff: $500-700

PS3 and a decent computer for the win. Plus do you want people going on your computer to play games?

I rather have a separate console for gaming.

Plus I rather play games on a big screen than on a 19" monitor.

 

[assaulter_99]

Gaming computer 1k plus

PS3 $300

decent computer to do other stuff: $500-700

PS3 and a decent computer for the win. Plus do you want people going on your computer to play games?

I rather have a separate console for gaming.

Plus I rather play games on a big screen than on a 19" monitor.

Are you seriously stating that you need $1000 to have a gaming rig? Give me that and I'll have 2 - 3 systems, so I can have a personal gaming rig, another for the family. Plus you can always hook you pc to a big screen, not just a console, heck even mobile phones can I have nothing against console gaming but I hate when people (consolites mainly) say you need tons of cash to game on your pc.

 

[phanbuey]

Gaming computer 1k plus

PS3 $300

decent computer to do other stuff: $500-700

PS3 and a decent computer for the win. Plus do you want people going on your computer to play games?

I rather have a separate console for gaming.

Plus I rather play games on a big screen than on a 19" monitor.

Sure if you're a casual gamer... that makes sense.

But if you want the best possible gaming experience - then PC all the way. There are people that buy $4000 gaming PC's for that experience.

And if you want to play on a bigger screen then you should hook your PC up to a bigger screen .

I have a gaming rig and a laptop for that same reason. One rig is for fun and backing up the laptop... and the laptop is for work. But pure gaming is PC. I have the console for snowboarding/skating games and rockband. Thats about it.

 

[Bo$$]

problem is with a PS3 or any console is that at the end of the day you are still gonna need a PC to do the basic email and shit, so you might as well save some cash and space and build/buy a decent PC.

nuff sed

 

[digibucc]

problem is with a PS3 or any console is that at the end of the day you are still gonna need a PC to do the basic email and shit, so you might as well save some cash and space and build/buy a decent PC.

nuff sed

not really... PS3 has a web browser. the majority of casual pc users can check their sites, check their mail, use online office suites, etc. they can do everything they need on a ps3.

I think as someone else said, the answer is for PCs and consoles to become more of the same thing (as they already technically are). It's just a matter of the companies LOOKING AT THEM that way.

 

[vbx]

Sure if you're a casual gamer... that makes sense.

But if you want the best possible gaming experience - then PC all the way. There are people that buy $4000 gaming PC's for that experience.

And if you want to play on a bigger screen then you should hook your PC up to a bigger screen .

I have a gaming rig and a laptop for that same reason. One rig is for fun and backing up the laptop... and the laptop is for work. But pure gaming is PC. I have the console for snowboarding/skating games and rockband. Thats about it.

Well, I'm not the type that likes to move crap around. I have a laptop for that. Seems to be a hassle to move crap back and forth. But that's just me.

I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.

Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.

Greatest gaming experience is with a PC? That's debatable. My fondest memory of playing games was playing Super Mario on the Nintendo with a friend. Or duck hunt. And the graphics sucked. lol.

Games nowadays focus way too much on 3d and little game play. I have a Wii too, and rather play new super mario or mario kart than most games that are out. I'm just not a hardcore gamer I guess.

 

[vbx]

not really... PS3 has a web browser. the majority of casual pc users can check their sites, check their mail, use online office suites, etc. they can do everything they need on a ps3.

I think as someone else said, the answer is for PCs and consoles to become more of the same thing (as they already technically are). It's just a matter of the companies LOOKING AT THEM that way.

1st off all, you can buy a PS3 and a personal computer all for less than 1k..

Most gaming PC out there are over 1k....

I have a PS3 and a personal computer and even a laptop. Most people have more than one toys.

I rather use my pc for internet and a console for gaming.

 

[Charper2013]

Well, I'm not the type that likes to move crap around. I have a laptop for that. Seems to be a hassle to move crap back and forth. But that's just me.

I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.

Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.

Greatest gaming experience is with a PC? That's debatable. My fondest memory of playing games was playing Super Mario on the Nintendo with a friend. Or duck hunt. And the graphics sucked. lol.

Games nowadays focus way too much on 3d and little game play. I have a Wii too, and rather play new super mario or mario kart than most games that are out. I'm just not a hardcore gamer I guess.

This guy makes a awesome point. Who would like to have friend over to watch them play your PC. A nice madden game in the living room sounds like fun.

 

[Easy Rhino]

the only reason i own a ps3 is for blu-ray. i bought the ps3 when it costs the same as a blu-ray player so it only made sense from a value point of view.

 

[Fourstaff]

Hmmm, I wonder if it is cheaper to own a basic PC and a gaming console or a more powerful PC and no console.

 

[HookeyStreet]

the only reason i own a ps3 is for blu-ray. i bought the ps3 when it costs the same as a blu-ray player so it only made sense from a value point of view.

It makes sense because you can still play any console exclusives that you like the look of.

Ideal world, we all own great gaming rigs and all consoles

 

[assaulter_99]

I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.

Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.

I get your point but once again, its skewed. I have pes on my pc, when friends come over, I just hook up my pc with the tv and there we go, in the living room, with hell breaking loose.

 

[digibucc]

1st off all, you can buy a PS3 and a personal computer all for less than 1k..

Most gaming PC out there are over 1k....

I have a PS3 and a personal computer and even a laptop. Most people have more than one toys.

I rather use my pc for internet and a console for gaming.

first of all, I never said you couldn't. I see no reason why you quoted me and got aggressive, when nothing I said even attempted to rebuke that.

secondly, you can play 90% of games on a sub-$700 pc at at least mid, and mostly high settings. If you want top of the line, you pay for it. you don't even have that option with a console. therefore it halts growth in graphic and technology, as it stays stagnant for 3 years with each generation.

and thirdly, I have a PS3, a Wii, 4 high end PCs, 2 laptops, 6 LCDs, ipod touch, blackberry...uh... what was the point of that again? as in, how does it relate to the conversation we were having, other than "people like toys"

what you would rather do has no effect on the capabilities of the machine. the fact of the matter is, PCs can do more. simple. consoles are simple. simple.

it depends on the type of person you are, what you will choose. but, I STILL do not understand why you quoted me, and stated your personal opinions as fact. use your toys the way you do, i'll use them the way i do -but everyone still has the option of using them completely different than either of us!

people use PS3s as super computers, and some people $3,000 pcs they hardly ever use.

what was your point?

AND,

I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.

Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.

I have my consoles, along with 2 different pcs in my living room hooked up to my hdtv. one is my media center, on is my gaming rig. I can watch a movie on the media center, or the ps3, or even the gaming rig - while playing games on the other. or movie on one, gaming on one, web on the other. any number of combinations. and i do this often.

point is, your argument is invalid in that there is no reason you can't game on a pc, in your living room, with 6 friends and @40+ inches. with better graphics, better sound, jus tplain more possibilities.