Ps3 Vs Pc

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Okay....maybe Im the only person that likes to experience a pc game to its fullest and not settle for medium/low settings.

I mean seriously. What crappy computers do you guys play on anyways. I started off playing battlefield on medium settings like most....but not until I upgraded my rig so I can max everything out did I trully experience the game.

And btw...when I stated that an average pc's life span was about 2 yrs I meant in its performance. Not that it breaks down or anything. You guys seem to think I meant it was totally inopperable.

I can pretty much play any game on the market on max settings with my current rig that I built last year. But guess what...come 4th quarter of this year the heavy games will be hitting the market....more dx10 games will be hitting the market and my pc is not going to cut it. Im going to need to upgrade. They might be minor but its still more money.

Come 4th quarter I will be looking into buying a new video card....I expect to shell out approximately $400 dollars to replace my x1950.

Lets see just how many "average" rigs will be able to run games like Crysis, Bio Shock, Medal of Honor Airborne, COD4...etc (need I go on?) to its fullest potential come 4th quarter. The last 3 games I mentioned are coming to consoles....and guess what? Performance will not be an issue and you can be sure that the graphics will match that of a higher end PC WITHOUT the frame rate problems. All that and the only thing I need to do with a console is pick up the game.

[camper.]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

From the ground up:

PS3 taking full capability (HD, blue ray, etc) = £350 + £1000 (el-cheapo HDTV) + £25 5.1 speakers, no games, accessories, power strip, etc = £1375 (actually around 1400 given the correct pricing for the PS3)

PC taking FULL modern game capability = £160 QX6600, £180 8800x card, £90 4GB PC-2 6400 800MHz RAM, £80 PSU, £50-100 case, £80 cooling, £50-80 sound card, £100 mouse and keyboard, £300 LCD monitor OR £100 CRT monitor + Windoze XP £100 or Vista Premium £130 + £25 5.1 speakers + £50 5.1 headset = £1065 minimum, £1375+ upper bound.

PCs are cheaper when you buy from the ground up, simple as that. Consoles are cheaper when you already have a TV but your PC doesn't have a monitor. Some of you morons are comparing PS3 with an existing TV vs PC without existing monitor, and that magically supports your point. Newsflash: It doesn't. But hey, if you prefer Sony raping your arse instead of Microsoft/Intel/nVidia, go ahead. At least the big 3 have some form of support & work together and keep the proprietary DRM arse rape to a minimum (Microsoft excluded from that).

Okay....maybe Im the only person that likes to experience a pc game to its fullest and not settle for medium/low settings.

I mean seriously. What crappy computers do you guys play on anyways. I started off playing battlefield on medium settings like most....but not until I upgraded my rig so I can max everything out did I trully experience the game.

And btw...when I stated that an average pc's life span was about 2 yrs I meant in its performance. Not that it breaks down or anything. You guys seem to think I meant it was totally inopperable.

I can pretty much play any game on the market on max settings with my current rig that I built last year. But guess what...come 4th quarter of this year the heavy games will be hitting the market....more dx10 games will be hitting the market and my pc is not going to cut it. Im going to need to upgrade. They might be minor but its still more money.

Come 4th quarter I will be looking into buying a new video card....I expect to shell out approximately $400 dollars to replace my x1950.

Lets see just how many "average" rigs will be able to run games like Crysis, Bio Shock, Medal of Honor Airborne, COD4...etc (need I go on?) to its fullest potential come 4th quarter. The last 3 games I mentioned are coming to consoles....and guess what? Performance will not be an issue and you can be sure that the graphics will match that of a higher end PC WITHOUT the frame rate problems. All that and the only thing I need to do with a console is pick up the game.

Wait, you mean that... games developers move on in a market with technology going faster than Moore's law? Holy ****, call the anti-trust police!




Comparing Crysis to any PS3 game, what f*cking colourful hippie land do you lot live in?

The reason for this argument is because you lot can't seem to handle anything but "top of the range" graphics. CS 1.6 holds its own, still. Linear gameplay, yes. Fun, yes. The only reason consoles last as long as they do is because the developers make it so.

[Nicfurious29]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Crysis......the ever so hyped game......that promises next gen graphics but has failed to present a demo with decent frame rates. Oh and the demo machines arent your average run of the mill PC's either.

The problem with PC's arent its games....its the developers. Developers seem to push the envelope too much when coming out with a new game. Screw graphics...I dont need the next evolution in bleeding edge graphics. Nor physics. But we PC gamers get screwed because of this. Resulting in games that appear on the market that even the highest of the high end PCs are barely capable of pushing 30 frames.

PC games are the only games developed for "future" technology. Meaning "future" spending on that technology.

At least with consoles there are standards. Causing the developers to push the consoles to its limitations but not costing us a dime in the end.

I love my PC......but damn is PC gaming one expensive hobby!!

PS....We're in a market where we are the guiney pigs. Where intelectual property wars are fought over and tested. Where video card technology are tested and later patched. Where technology hits the market before being perfected. Thats the life of a PC gamer.

[The Laughing Man]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Camperstriker your argument is flawed.

1). Your PC specs list doesn't include anything that allows you to play Blu-ray or HD media and once you got all those bits what exactly do you plug them in to? You failed to list a C2D mobo which will set you back another £50 -£100. Having looked around the cheapest Blu ray drive listed by Froogle is £600 so suddenly your PS3 stomping PC doesn't have the raw the abilities of a PS3 unless you add another £700 to your price list.
2). The idea exists that you MUST have a 1080p TV to enjoy a PS3 to it's full potential. A 1080p TV will be at least 40' wide, how is a 40' TV screen comparable to a 22' monitor? Oh and your pricing for that screen is way off as well. You can get a 1080p HDMI 40' screen for £700 which instantly puts the PS3 + LCD TV price a long way below your already flawed PC price.

Before we start going off and using Crysis as an example of how great the PC is I would suggest you have a look at this

http://ps3.qj.net/Suddenly-Crytek-thinks-next-gen-can-handle-Crysis/pg/49/aid/68551

Although since Crysis hasn't yet launched and all the current Dx10 games run like pigs on current Dx10 hardware I am willing to bet a few people are going to be in for a shock when they run Crysis on their rigs for the first time.

[camper.]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Camperstriker your argument is flawed.

1). Your PC specs list doesn't include anything that allows you to play Blu-ray or HD media and once you got all those bits what exactly do you plug them in to? You failed to list a C2D mobo which will set you back another £50 -£100. Having looked around the cheapest Blu ray drive listed by Froogle is £600 so suddenly your PS3 stomping PC doesn't have the raw the abilities of a PS3 unless you add another £700 to your price list.
2). The idea exists that you MUST have a 1080p TV to enjoy a PS3 to it's full potential. A 1080p TV will be at least 40' wide, how is a 40' TV screen comparable to a 22' monitor? Oh and your pricing for that screen is way off as well. You can get a 1080p HDMI 40' screen for £700 which instantly puts the PS3 + LCD TV price a long way below your already flawed PC price.

Before we start going off and using Crysis as an example of how great the PC is I would suggest you have a look at this

http://ps3.qj.net/Suddenly-Crytek-thinks-next-gen-can-handle-Crysis/pg/49/aid/68551

Although since Crysis hasn't yet launched and all the current Dx10 games run like pigs on current Dx10 hardware I am willing to bet a few people are going to be in for a shock when they run Crysis on their rigs for the first time.

I thought I said "No overhyped proprietary ********"? Also, there's this thing called "downloading". As for the motherboard, big whoop, another £50. At the lowest bound you still save £200 over a PS3/HDTV setup. I thought we were talking about gaming specific builds as well, because if we're talking overall functionality, you may as well throw, I don't know, the whole internet & every PC program & piece of hardware made since 1998 into the mix. A PC rapes the PS3 at every other function - except of course, blu-ray playing and depending on the PC, gaming. Last I checked, nobody gave a damn about Blu-Ray, even the pr0n industry is moving to HD. Either way, this is not a Blu-Ray vs whatever argument. A PS3 generally doesn't have half the raw abilities of a PC, so do yourself a favour & bandage that gunshot wound in your foot.

2 - The idea exists that you MUST have all the high end hardware to enjoy the full potential of PC games. How is a 40' TV screen comparable to a 22' monitor, you ask? How the f*ck is a PS3 comparable to a PC? Also, games on PC can be played on a HDTV. The thing is, we've had "1080p" since 1996 or so when FPS games took precedence. As for the pricing, we can also jack down the PC price considerably by shopping around, or just buying a bundle. The listed price is the highest of the high end currently, I already showed several PCs that would still blow a PS3 out of the water and cost half the price as a PS3/HDTV combo (even when the HDTV is £800).

Next you shoot yourself in the foot again, common sense seems to be beyond you. When you explain how a 78xx series GPU is going to handle any of that **** Crysis has to display, when dual 8800GTXs can't do it, then come back to me. It'll be dumbed down as far as possible just like all the other PC=>Console ports. I don't think you even read the link you presented, seriously.

On the other hand, he also mentioned the word "sacrifice." As in: "We would just have to see how much of a sacrifice to the game we'd have to make. Or whether there would be a sacrifice at all, maybe we could find a way to make the game look exactly the same as it does on PC on the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3." (Hmm. Hedging their bets, thinking that what they said in Leipzig was correct after all?)

I don't think anyone will be in for a shock. Those with enough brains comparable to their money know well that their rig is unlikely to cope with Crysis on the highest given modes. Either way, the game is not going to look like that in any f*cking way. We've had "ZOMFGREALISM" shots since 1998, Sony even said the PS2 could render in real time. Pure horse****.

Crysis......the ever so hyped game......that promises next gen graphics but has failed to present a demo with decent frame rates. Oh and the demo machines arent your average run of the mill PC's either.

The problem with PC's arent its games....its the developers. Developers seem to push the envelope too much when coming out with a new game. Screw graphics...I dont need the next evolution in bleeding edge graphics. Nor physics. But we PC gamers get screwed because of this. Resulting in games that appear on the market that even the highest of the high end PCs are barely capable of pushing 30 frames.

PC games are the only games developed for "future" technology. Meaning "future" spending on that technology.

At least with consoles there are standards. Causing the developers to push the consoles to its limitations but not costing us a dime in the end.

I love my PC......but damn is PC gaming one expensive hobby!!

PS....We're in a market where we are the guiney pigs. Where intelectual property wars are fought over and tested. Where video card technology are tested and later patched. Where technology hits the market before being perfected. Thats the life of a PC gamer.

Guess what, there are also PC games that go far back. CS 1.6 and Source & all games on their respective engines can be played on low end machines, as can BF2, even Armed Assault/Flashpoint. Doom 3, Quake Wars, etc. All scaleable.

Remember that up until now, consoles have only had to render at low resolutions. 720x576, I think (some even lower). Not very comparable to the standard 1280x1024 now, or back then, 1024x768.

Consoles do not have standards either. The most you will get is "This item must not emit X amount of radiation". The "standards" are simply "checks and balances" in place by the company to make sure their *** doesn't go bankrupt like Sega. There is of course, a specific hardware standard. The thing is, there is also something called "lowering the video settings" on PCs. Try it, you may possibly be surprised. I sincerely doubt they were talking about Crysis choking up on all low @1280x1024 with dual GTXs. That is pure horse****, again, common sense prevails.


Consoles make very slim room for graphics improvements. It's all up to the developers to control the "improvement". As we see with the N64...

[System]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Okay time to end this topic now. A PS3 + Extra controller + 3 games + HDMI cable will cost you, today, £424. I challenge anyone to list me a PC that matches a PS3 with THAT £424 and since you want to focus on all factors lets say it also has to include a Blu-ray drive.

Why would someone put a bluray drive in there computer? That is just dumb.

1) No PC games use bluray.

2) Bluray drive on a computer would atleast let your burn a HD dvd.

3) But you can't burn a HD DVD because well, they don't exist yet.

4) Thats like me going out and buying the latest Extreme C2D when we both know a low end C2D will do the job just fine. Not to mention you can OC but thats another story...

But if someone is a complete moron out there and wants a bluray drive in a decent computer, then yes a PS3 will beat him - are you happy now?

I didnt "shop". Start reading. Since EST is a small country, its fairly easy to gather every price related information from the local PC market under one site. I picked the least expensive and the top, because I just wanted to make a point, and not research my nuts off just so it could be ignored in 5 minutes. You show exceptional lacking in reading aswell, so why bother.

Ok, you really take every chance you can to take a strike at me don't you? Fine, I'll rephrase the word "shop" with "research". Better sugar?

Another thing, I do my "shopping/research" (don't want to get in trouble again for using the wrong word) in the local computer store 10 minutes away. Way cheaper than online.

Yup, so it would last me 5, instead of 3 years. Oh wait...

Exagerated, again. Why do I bother?

Great! With a 300 USD mobo I save 120 off a X-Fi :laugh:


Youve already proven that technically it is cheaper, so why bother?

Sorry, I'm lost - what is it your trying to say?

I wasnt "ripped off". There is a definite price difference because I live in Eastern Europe.

80 GB HDD
512 MB RAM
Some cheap AsRock mobo
P4 3.0
Ati Radeon 9550SE
-
7500 EEK = 575 USD (I used 13:1 currency rate)

Well all you had to do was upgrade that rig to 2gb ram and it would have been fine to play bf2 med/high. I used a 9600 series radeon card with bout the same build. My cpu was a 2.8 ghz P4 however... I saw a huge difference in performance when I went to 3gb of ram in that computer, though I wasn't very smart with researching/shopping for my upgrade backthen. I chose tigerdirect when I could have gotten cheaper elsewhere - Ohwell, silly goose I was.

Bytheway, until you said Eastern Europe and EST being a small country, I had no idea. I'm so use to EST being my time zone I completely had no idea what you were talking about. The EEK didn't help much either. Just out of curiousity though, does EEK stand for anything or is that what your currency is called?

[camper.]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

EST = Estonia?

[The Laughing Man]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

thought I said "No overhyped proprietary ********"?

Oh well look what I found

PS3 taking full capability (HD, blue ray, etc)

Now who said that????

So in your comparisson you want to take the PS3's full capability but only if someone doesn't point out that to do so you would need to have to add an extra £500 to your price list to allow your PC to play HD media?

Any other aspects about the PS3 you would like to hand pick and remove just to help justify your flawed pricing argument?

Also, there's this thing called "downloading".

Please feel free to provide a link to ANY websites that actually provides downloadable HD movie content.

The first half your second point is a mishmash of meaningless repetition of points I made earlier but this comment

I already showed several PCs that would still blow a PS3 out of the water and cost half the price as a PS3/HDTV combo (even when the HDTV is £800).

That's rubbish what you've showed so far is a PC that comes out to £600 - £700 but you were very careful to make sure you didn't list the spec and then a PC that cost more than the PS3 + HD TV combo that I listed, that had a vital component missing and had had the HD media player selectively forgotten. You've also failed completely to show us ANY of these so called 'pre-built' bundles that could out perform a PS3.

Next you shoot yourself in the foot again, common sense seems to be beyond you. When you explain how a 78xx series GPU is going to handle any of that **** Crysis has to display, when dual 8800GTXs can't do it, then come back to me.

Fine I'll come back to you when you explain

a). Why I need to explain how it runs on a PS3 when in fact it was the developers who said it could be converted too both a PS3 and 360 and that they didn't know if it would require 'sacrifices' or not

and

b). How two 8800GTXs are going to be cheaper than a PS3. Remember the developers say a PS3 or 360 could handle it possibly with or without 'sacrifice' but you've just said dual 8800 GTXs CAN'T handle it. Just how expensive must your PC be to be able to handle a game the developers have already said can be ported to a PS3?

[camper.]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Oh well look what I found



Now who said that????

So in your comparisson you want to take the PS3's full capability but only if someone doesn't point out that to do so you would need to have to add an extra £500 to your price list to allow your PC to play HD media?

Any other aspects about the PS3 you would like to hand pick and remove just to help justify your flawed pricing argument?



Please feel free to provide a link to ANY websites that actually provides downloadable HD movie content.

The first half your second point is a mishmash of meaningless repetition of points I made earlier but this comment



That's rubbish what you've showed so far is a PC that comes out to £600 - £700 but you were very careful to make sure you didn't list the spec and then a PC that cost more than the PS3 + HD TV combo that I listed, that had a vital component missing and had had the HD media player selectively forgotten. You've also failed completely to show us ANY of these so called 'pre-built' bundles that could out perform a PS3.



Fine I'll come back to you when you explain

a). Why I need to explain how it runs on a PS3 when in fact it was the developers who said it could be converted too both a PS3 and 360 and that they didn't know if it would require 'sacrifices' or not

and

b). How two 8800GTXs are going to be cheaper than a PS3. Remember the developers say a PS3 or 360 could handle it possibly with or without 'sacrifice' but you've just said dual 8800 GTXs CAN'T handle it. Just how expensive must your PC be to be able to handle a game the developers have already said can be ported to a PS3?

It appears logic does not come very easily to some. No worries. We are talking FULL POTENTIAL, not "Equal potential".

First: The PS3 is prebuilt. It comes with a Blu-Ray player. Blu-Ray is the standard for the PS3. All the newest games are on Blu-Ray. To enjoy the newest games to their FULL potential, you would need a HDTV.

On the other hand, all PC games are available through CD/DVD, or downloads. To enjoy these games to their FULL POTENTIAL, you only need the listed specs. Hence, no proprietary, overhyped ********.

Please feel free to provide a link to ANY websites that actually provides downloadable HD movie content.

No thanks. For two reasons. One, neither of the HD brands have taken off yet. This is the equivalent of rewinding 10 years and asking me to link to which sites host ISO images of CDs. Secondly, there are few such sites (sites in the broadest meaning). To post them means the ban stick. Bandwidth vs download size just won't cut it yet. In 4-6 years when this trash takes off, then we can come back to this petty argument.

The first half your second point is a mishmash of meaningless repetition of points I made earlier but this comment

Very common e-peen speak for "my position is indefensible so I'll just ignore this section". You are well and truly clueless.

That's rubbish what you've showed so far is a PC that comes out to £600 - £700 but you were very careful to make sure you didn't list the spec and then a PC that cost more than the PS3 + HD TV combo that I listed, that had a vital component missing and had had the HD media player selectively forgotten. You've also failed completely to show us ANY of these so called 'pre-built' bundles that could out perform a PS3.

Rewind back a few pages, it seems you're viewing at 400x300 resolution and have your forum settings set to 10 posts per page. As for the HD media, as System said, it's irrelevant. There are no PC games out that care for HD media. The biggest standalone game I've seen so far is Supreme Commander taking up a dual layer DVD, or Act of War which also does.

The pre-built bundles also have heavily overpriced CPUs and underpriced GPUs. That can very easily be balanced. The AMD bundles will kill a PS3.

Fine I'll come back to you when you explain

a). Why I need to explain how it runs on a PS3 when in fact it was the developers who said it could be converted too both a PS3 and 360 and that they didn't know if it would require 'sacrifices' or not

and

b). How two 8800GTXs are going to be cheaper than a PS3. Remember the developers say a PS3 or 360 could handle it possibly with or without 'sacrifice' but you've just said dual 8800 GTXs CAN'T handle it. Just how expensive must your PC be to be able to handle a game the developers have already said can be ported to a PS3?

Dear lord, get some reading glasses, child.

A) It pretty ****ing obviously is going to need sacrifices, unless you're telling me a 7x GPU is going to take the workload of 2x8x series GPUs. Developers BS all the time, if you used that lunk of ambient grey matter floating in the hollow of your head, you may be inclined to think that the PS3 can't handle psuedo-photorealistic graphics.

B) Crysis' system requirements are far lower.

Estimated:

Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
[b]HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP


Recommended Requirements
CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista

The PS3 is not going to get those visuals as shown in the screenshots. The best you're getting is a nerfed copy, as with everyone else who doesn't have less than an 8800GTX.

Either way, the PS3 PHYSICALLY CANNOT HANDLE THE RENDERING WORKLOAD SEEN IN THE SCREENSHOTS FROM CRYTEK. Nuff said.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Ok, you really take every chance you can to take a strike at me don't you? Fine, I'll rephrase the word "shop" with "research". Better sugar?

:laugh: - sweet irony.

Another thing, I do my "shopping/research" (don't want to get in trouble again for using the wrong word) in the local computer store 10 minutes away. Way cheaper than online.

I do my research and "shopping" on the internet, searching through forums and communities of the respectie detail/problem/issue Im looking for. It has generally given me a better overview due to multiple opinions, fanboism, hype and general flamefights- arguments produce sh!tload of information.

Well all you had to do was upgrade that rig to 2gb ram and it would have been fine to play bf2 med/high. I used a 9600 series radeon card with bout the same build. My cpu was a 2.8 ghz P4 however... I saw a huge difference in performance when I went to 3gb of ram in that computer, though I wasn't very smart with researching/shopping for my upgrade backthen. I chose tigerdirect when I could have gotten cheaper elsewhere - Ohwell, silly goose I was.

Well, I went from 512 to 1 GIG and I got some, minor, weak improvement. I also changed from 9550 to 9600 and again, improvement was weak. As a matter of fact, my BF2 settings for example didnt change at all, and that upgrade didnt fight off the total FPS loss I gained with newer BF2 patches. Which is why I know my PC is weak, and to upgrade it, I must choke out sh!tload of money. So a PC isnt just "change a few parts and last another 3 years". Which was my main point. Maybe 3 Gigs of RAM does produce the desirable result, for me, a 100% increase in memory just didnt. If that doesnt, its time for a total makeover.

Bytheway, until you said Eastern Europe and EST being a small country, I had no idea. I'm so use to EST being my time zone I completely had no idea what you were talking about. The EEK didn't help much either. Just out of curiousity though, does EEK stand for anything or is that what your currency is called?

EST- Estonia
EEK- Eesti Kroon (Estonian Crown), currency. I used EEK to give a more detailed comparitive numerical picture about the price, maybe it didnt work out as well as I tried to :p

[Sir. MatDef]

Re: Ps3 Vs Pc

Aaaaaand I think we've had enough discussion on this topic. :dead: