Smashkirby
New Member
I hope you all know that one of the PS3's cores run at 3.2ghz, and the other ones just sorta stand there not transferring much power. Just saying.
Consoles are FAR weeker than PC's?
- Thread starter ardley216
- Start date
probably because the one core can handle everything as its so powerfull
i dont believe they dont do nothing though.
some people have very powerfull systems here like q6600,4gb of ram,8800GT which probably cost around £800-900 and they still lag in Crysis or cant max it out.
so i know what i would rather go with...a £299 Playstation 3 and your games are guarenteed to look good and always work without lag
plus your good for 2+ years unlike a pc where you constantly keep having to upgrade to play the latest games.
PunterCam
Active Member
I'd probably buy a ps3 if I could afford one - for games consoles are pretty unbeatable. Straight forward and no nonsense, thats all I want with games really.
Personally I think the Wii is the best console or computer to have come out since the N64. It's back to real 'gaming'. Now it seems to all be about the latest graphics and a cinematic storyline, and that's great, but only some of the time... Creativity has been lost as people spend their time creating the latest universe to play in.
Upgrading your computer every 2 years to play the latest games is nonsense too; I've got my old 1.8ghz athlon xp with its 256mb video card and 2 gig of ram playing the latest games (albeit at 800x600, but with medium settings most of the time) as my 'living room pc', connected up to a projector. It's 5 years old.
Personally I think the Wii is the best console or computer to have come out since the N64. It's back to real 'gaming'. Now it seems to all be about the latest graphics and a cinematic storyline, and that's great, but only some of the time... Creativity has been lost as people spend their time creating the latest universe to play in.
Upgrading your computer every 2 years to play the latest games is nonsense too; I've got my old 1.8ghz athlon xp with its 256mb video card and 2 gig of ram playing the latest games (albeit at 800x600, but with medium settings most of the time) as my 'living room pc', connected up to a projector. It's 5 years old.
Motoxrdude
Active Member
What's your definition of latest?
PunterCam
Active Member
Well, the latest graphics. The finest looking games. Doesn't matter what format it's on.
My point is 10 or 15 years ago programmers had to be creative because there was no computer power. They came up with what can only be called 'geeky' games, and they were so much fun! Now that the sky's the limit with game ideas the creativity of the writers and programmers is being challenged, and they're coming up short in most cases.
CG man
New Member
Specs arn't easy to understand these days PS3 has a 9 core processor but look into it and you find out its a newer version of the old apple processor that couldnt keep up with the competition so Apple ditched IBM processors for the much faster Intel Core 2 Duo. Also the PS3 processor is realy one big processor joined onto 8 tiny processors cores and one of the cores is dissabled. You can't compare it to a dual core Intel or AMD processor. A dual core AMD or Intel processor would beat PS3 processor in computing A.I and game code by a large amount.
PCs are far better at simulations as they have more ram and hardrive for massive landscapes and also more main CPU power for generating AI and simulations of physics.
With less memory, console developers create optimised for the hardware smaller gaming enviroments and less amount of textures.
When A new console comes out it is always better graphics wise than a PC as its got some of the latest graphics chips at the time and also the first games are coded to take the graphics chips to the max. A PC owner has to wait for the games developers to decide when to take a certain hardware configuration to the max and optimising of new games takes months.
I like the PS3 though find me a boxing game on the PC as good as that on the PS3 but on the other hand find me a FPS or war simulator like ArmA or Silent Hunter 4 on the PS3. it's not about whos best it's about which games you want and which machine that runs those kinds of games best.
Next gen PC gaming will soon be here you thaught it already was but apparently most PC games that are out in around 1-2 years is coded for quad core real quad core not 1 core and mini cores.
PCs are far better at simulations as they have more ram and hardrive for massive landscapes and also more main CPU power for generating AI and simulations of physics.
With less memory, console developers create optimised for the hardware smaller gaming enviroments and less amount of textures.
When A new console comes out it is always better graphics wise than a PC as its got some of the latest graphics chips at the time and also the first games are coded to take the graphics chips to the max. A PC owner has to wait for the games developers to decide when to take a certain hardware configuration to the max and optimising of new games takes months.
I like the PS3 though find me a boxing game on the PC as good as that on the PS3 but on the other hand find me a FPS or war simulator like ArmA or Silent Hunter 4 on the PS3. it's not about whos best it's about which games you want and which machine that runs those kinds of games best.
Next gen PC gaming will soon be here you thaught it already was but apparently most PC games that are out in around 1-2 years is coded for quad core real quad core not 1 core and mini cores.
Last edited:
elmarcorulz
VIP Member
Which is the exact reason is topped playing games on my pc and bought a 360! Id rather make a one off payment for the console, then pay for a new game every so often that looks the business over shelling out hundreds of pounds on upgrades just to keep the same games looking just as good. Consoles ftw!