ps3 performance equivalent to.. ?

[UpskirtHayley]

what you think ps3 equivalent to pc spec?

although many people said ps3 gpu is made from 7800gtx tech but ill say the power performance of the ps3 is equivalent to:

- three 8800 ultra (tri-sli)
- 16gb ram
- phenom 9600



ps3 games is 100% playable perfromance even if it isnt 60fps. play the same game in pc version on your hd4670/2gb ram/q9550 and you cant play it on maximum eye candy full potential without getting deep stutter.




so what you think of the ps3 power performance is equivalent to? just want to hear what you say.

 

[bm23]

heh, i asked the same question. wikipedia said something about the ps3 having 2 256mb RAM. not sure what that means exactly. and oh, i play armored core for answer and there are occasional lag, during intensive battle and stuff. and to add on to the questions, if i may, the specs that are listed for the ps3, except for its CPU, are pretty average. so how is it possible that the ps3 can run "heavy" games?

 

[UpskirtHayley]

i think ps3 specs dont mean nothing. especially the 256mb.... i think its power is more greater than the spec. 512mb system ram on pc cant play many 2006+ games. i think pc and ps3 have different tech.

armor core for answer has ocasional lag when intense battle? but it is playable right? not like dark messiah on 8500gt/1gb ram/x2 4400+ max setting.

 

[Shane]

you cant realy compare a console to a Pc,The Ps3 uses a Cell processor and is desighned for gaming.

i suppose you could compare the graphics though,i also heard its the same as 7800gtx.

- three 8800 ultra (tri-sli)
- 16gb ram
- phenom 9600

i doubt it has the same gpu power as Tril sli and no way does it have 16gb ram.

 

[Dropkickmurphys]

with consoles the games are made to be effective with the hardware that comes in the specific console.. where as a pc you buy the parts to fit the game... I think thats why consoles can perform so well.

as Nevakonaza said, its difficult to compare the specs. even if you built a PC with the specs highlighted in the first post, I doubt you could run games as effectively as you could on a PS3 or whatever...

 

[hpi]

with consoles the games are made to be effective with the hardware that comes in the specific console.. where as a pc you buy the parts to fit the game... I think thats why consoles can perform so well.

as Nevakonaza said, its difficult to compare the specs. even if you built a PC with the specs highlighted in the first post, I doubt you could run games as effectively as you could on a PS3 or whatever...

Spot on.

 

[emac227]

ive heard that there has yet to be a game made that has used all the ps3 potential and i can believe it because i dont get any lag when playing grand theif auto 4 and the fans dont really kick in till i play a game for like 5 minutes


I LOVE MY PS3

 

[gamerman4]

The PS3 on linux runs the equivalent to a Pentium 3 because Sony put a hypervisor on the GPU so linux cant access it and it runs like molasses. Also you couldn't put Windows on it because the CPU is PPC based. The GPU has 256MB of vram and the system has 256MB of its own RAM so it wouldn't make an awesome computer but it's great for gaming.

 

[hpi]

PS3 has been said to be a home super computer that's better then the majority of home computers.

 

[gamerman4]

PS3 has been said to be a home super computer that's better then the majority of home computers.

It's great for folding and cluster processing but as a general purpose computer, no.

 

[G25r8cer]

you cant realy compare a console to a Pc,The Ps3 uses a Cell processor and is desighned for gaming.

i suppose you could compare the graphics though,i also heard its the same as 7800gtx.




i doubt it has the same gpu power as Tril sli and no way does it have 16gb ram.

Agree

 

[gamerman4]

what you think ps3 equivalent to pc spec?

although many people said ps3 gpu is made from 7800gtx tech but ill say the power performance of the ps3 is equivalent to:

- three 8800 ultra (tri-sli)
- 16gb ram
- phenom 9600



ps3 games is 100% playable perfromance even if it isnt 60fps. play the same game in pc version on your hd4670/2gb ram/q9550 and you cant play it on maximum eye candy full potential without getting deep stutter.




so what you think of the ps3 power performance is equivalent to? just want to hear what you say.

You have obviously never played a PS3. PS3 games have a maximum of about 2x Antialiasing (if it has it at all), shoddy anisotropic filtering...it doesnt even compare to a PC gaming rig.



heres a comparison from
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html?sid=6202552

Fallout 3
PS3:

PC:

On many games, the Xbox 360 looks better than the PS3 but neither console could ever compare to a PC of the same generation.

 

[Dropkickmurphys]

Different consoles / PCs will render graphics differently, on Eurogamer there is a comparison of CoD:WW graphics between the PC/Xbox360/PS3 versions, and you can see where certain areas of graphical content have been edited to fit the consoles / PC better... at the end of the day, they are all better at some things...but games on the consoles will usually be overall better quality cause of what I stated earlier in the thread, they are made to match the console, where as with the PC you have to build it to the spec of the game and the game itself hasnt been made to perform perfectly with your specific hardware.

 

[CdnAudiophile]

PC's will ALWAYS be able to give better graphics. But if you look at it from the price vs performance PC's can't touch consoles.
I myself tho would rather have a great gaming rig which can do many other things than just game tho. Plus as you can see in gamermans post the difference is huge when you play with all settings maxed.

 

[Stildawn]

PS3 looks like crap to the games I play on my rig. And mine isnt even that top of the line.

 

[Vizy]

doesn't a ps3 have like 8 cores? Like 7 cores dedicated to performance and a core to keep all the other cores working properly?

Or is that just Bull?

 

[Motoxrdude]

You have obviously never played a PS3. PS3 games have a maximum of about 2x Antialiasing (if it has it at all), shoddy anisotropic filtering...it doesnt even compare to a PC gaming rig.



heres a comparison from
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html?sid=6202552

Fallout 3
PS3:

PC:

On many games, the Xbox 360 looks better than the PS3 but neither console could ever compare to a PC of the same generation.[/QUOTE]
Eh, that doesn't look the same at all. I just went there on fallout 3 and it looks a lot better. You sure that was on a 1080P resolution (yes, I know fallout 3 is only 760p)?

The reason consoles run so much better then Pcs spec per spec is because they don't have to run a compatibility layer. All the hardware is identical so programers only have to program for that platform. For example, try and compare assembly language to C++. Which one executes faster?

 

[gamerman4]

Eh, that doesn't look the same at all. I just went there on fallout 3 and it looks a lot better. You sure that was on a 1080P resolution (yes, I know fallout 3 is only 760p)?

The reason consoles run so much better then Pcs spec per spec is because they don't have to run a compatibility layer. All the hardware is identical so programers only have to program for that platform. For example, try and compare assembly language to C++. Which one executes faster?

The list of games that are actually rendered at 1080p on either PS3 or Xbox is horribly small. I'm having trouble understanding what you said. What doesn't look the same at all? I also wasn't arguing spec for spec, I was arguing the processing equivalent as the OP wanted. I don't even know why you quoted me, I didn't say anything related to what you just argued. I was just stating that the PS3 could not possibly equal a computer with the specs the OP said.

 

[Motoxrdude]

The list of games that are actually rendered at 1080p on either PS3 or Xbox is horribly small. I'm having trouble understanding what you said. What doesn't look the same at all? I also wasn't arguing spec for spec, I was arguing the processing equivalent as the OP wanted. I don't even know why you quoted me, I didn't say anything related to what you just argued. I was just stating that the PS3 could not possibly equal a computer with the specs the OP said.

I just quoted the pictures you posted. When I went on my PS3 to play fallout 3, it looked nothing like the picture that you posted; it looked exactly what the PC one looked like.

 

[gamerman4]

I just quoted the pictures you posted. When I went on my PS3 to play fallout 3, it looked nothing like the picture that you posted; it looked exactly what the PC one looked like.

Wow that was a really required missing piece of information. Regardless, the PS3 barely has any antialiasing so jaggies are everywhere. I don't know what TV you have but if it is not a computer monitor then it has a large dot pitch, This helps hide the jagged edges. It may look fine but I'm sure it would look like gamespots screenshot if you actually took a screenshot yourself. Regardless, the PS3 doesn't have as much to process in comparison with a PC game (unless the game is a crappy port to PC).