|
Console vs PC
|
|
Member
|
25. January 2008 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
The new burnout is gonna run at 60fps on the PS3 :)
A PC in theory should always be more powerful than a console
In my opinion the good thing about a console is the games usually get better looking and smoother as the console ages a bit.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2008 @ 15:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
And PC games don't?
|
Member
|
25. January 2008 @ 15:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
And then some in a lot of cases :)
But at least Burnout shows the PS3 is capable of decent frame rates.
|
Member
|
25. January 2008 @ 17:26 |
Link to this message
|
ya but if the same game was on pc it would probably get 100 fps esspecially a racing game
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2008 @ 17:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not usually - typically if a game is on Xbox 360 and PS3 and the PC, the PC version is an autoport, which means it'll look ass, and run ass.
|
Member
|
25. January 2008 @ 19:31 |
Link to this message
|
i was thinking about need for speed which looks exactly the same, but it gets very high fps
also look at games like gears of war and halo 2 which are much better on pc
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. January 2008 @ 20:17 |
Link to this message
|
NFS I'll grant you. Halo 2 though, it ran fine on an original xbox. Even my PC can't run it at max settings. My PC's almost immeasurably faster than the first xbox.
|
Member
|
26. January 2008 @ 00:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
are you serious
OS: Windows Vista
Processor: 2 Ghz Pentium 4 class processor (or x64)
RAM: 1 GB
Hard Drive: 7 GB
Video Card: DX9 graphics card: WDDM driver, PS 2.0/32BPP, At least nVidia 6000 or ATI x700 or above
Online Multi-player: Internet connection for Games for Windows ? LIVE
Drive: DVD-ROM drive
these are recomended
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. January 2008 @ 07:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah but have you tried running the game? To get it to run well at 1920x1200, a proper resolution, you need something along the lines of a 7800/X1800 at least. Given the comparative hardware of the xbox, I think that's disgusting.
|
Member
|
26. January 2008 @ 14:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
yes that is true but maybe they did that so xbox sales would go up who knows
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. January 2008 @ 15:15 |
Link to this message
|
The game was released with Vista. Since Halo 2 was for the original xbox, not the 360 which came out before Vista, I doubt that was their motive.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
26. January 2008 @ 23:15 |
Link to this message
|
You obviously have never played Halo 2 on the PC. It's is coded like crap and runs like it! It's a freakin XBOX game, I should be able to max it out and get 100+ frames! Of course that's not happening...
BAD BAD coding... Same with Crysis, it's definitely not optimized enough, and it shows. COD4 is almost as good looking and runs much better.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
26. January 2008 @ 23:24 |
Link to this message
|
Its not really fair to compare like this, I think it should be compared like this lets find a 600au PC which includes the following specs to match a Ps3.
8 Core Cell CPU @ 3.2ghz I think something like a E6750 or E6850 or QC6600 would match it.
Nvidia Reality Synthisiser is said to be abit faster then a 7800GTX so you would need a 7800GTX or a 7950 to match it.
a Blu ray drive, how much does a PC one cost alone :D around as much as a Ps3 or more.
+ You need a motherboard, SATA HDD, PSU, Case, RAM Ps3 has about 256mb XDR Ram I dont know how it will compare to DDR Ram because it is much faster maybe its like having 512mb or 768mb DDR2 Ram.
I think it might turn out a bit more :P
I dont know how PS3 games look bad right now the ones that are on both PC and Ps3 practically match in quality, Naughty Dog also stated that in Uncharted only 28% of the Ps3's full power is being used and ive been told the game looks great.
As for Crysis I think the game could have better performance on most hardware,
My Graphics card is just a 8500GT but COD4 runs with everything maxed out 1024x768 without any lag while crysis well I think i do push it :P everything on high except 3 settings but at 800x600 it does lag and even though to me it dosent look much better then COD4 at a lower res.
Ive been told Crysis uses the GPU much more then the CPU I think it should have been made equal, because I dont think anyone thinks because a game lags it must be great looking and then they think this other game looks great like COD4 and dosent lag imagine what this game Crysis would look like maxed out, to me it seems crytek took this approach by making the game engine unefficent making it lag on most systems then being used as a Leading Game but when everyone can max it out and run it without lag in a year or 2 you will think why did it run so poor when it dosent look as good as they made it seem.
Sure It does look great but not great enough to show why hardly any system can run it with everything turned up.
|
Member
|
26. January 2008 @ 23:34 |
Link to this message
|
i actually have played halo2 maybe coded badly which is the companies fault, i may have been wrong in saying that title but if bungi put the same amount of effort into the pc version as the xbox it would run much better on the pc
but the graphics are far better on the pc version
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169711/index.html
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 00:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah well can you Run windows on your PS3?
Yeah that's what I thought...
Also the Quality difference seems significant. I just might try it again on the PC...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. January 2008 @ 00:11
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
27. January 2008 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
Actually you can run windows :P, you have to run it through Linux but it runs and ive seen youtube videos faster then you'd think.
We will see when teh full version of Gt5 comes not alot of PC games will be able to match it in terms of graphics and at 60fps fully.
You Also have to remember the resolution Ps3 can run all games no lag at 1920×1080.
your 4200+ many people might say its faster then the Cell Engine but I wont, code specially for either and the cell will be able to beat that 4200+.
Do you know what I just thought about, Take a look at Gran Turismo 5 ok it runs at 60fps all the time 30fps in replay mode, at 1920x1080, 16 Very High Polygon count cars on track at a time, I think the Ps3's GPU must be a little bit more then what I thought it was because I doubt a 7800GTX would do so well in this type of game what do you think?
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 10:01 |
Link to this message
|
Maybe you haven't heard, but the PS3 doesn't run many games at 1080p. My PC right now is faster than my PS3. I would rather play games on the PC as they will look better. The PS3 really can't compare...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can't build a complete PC to match the graphical potential of the PS3 for the same price, but you can build one that matches it in most games for about the same, and for not much more, one that kicks the PS3's ass. Consoles aren't as powerful as you think.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. January 2008 @ 10:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dazila:
Actually you can run windows :P, you have to run it through Linux but it runs and ive seen youtube videos faster then you'd think.
We will see when teh full version of Gt5 comes not alot of PC games will be able to match it in terms of graphics and at 60fps fully.
You Also have to remember the resolution Ps3 can run all games no lag at 1920×1080.
your 4200+ many people might say its faster then the Cell Engine but I wont, code specially for either and the cell will be able to beat that 4200+.
Do you know what I just thought about, Take a look at Gran Turismo 5 ok it runs at 60fps all the time 30fps in replay mode, at 1920x1080, 16 Very High Polygon count cars on track at a time, I think the Ps3's GPU must be a little bit more then what I thought it was because I doubt a 7800GTX would do so well in this type of game what do you think?
clued up in PR are we?
no game has yet to be made for the PS3 and 360 that can run at FULL 1080p. some are jsut about 720p, and even COD4 is just 600p.
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|. |
Junior Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
I hope it does come to the PS3. I mean, the PS3 does need help. Most, if not all of my friends own a 360 and not a PS3, so maybe Crysis will inspire some people to buy the PS3, as it did the same to many PC users who spend thousands on upgrading their PC to play it.
From the article:
Quote:
but more of a big upgrade over the PC version
I hope they're not talking graphically, because as we have said, there is no way in hell the PS3 is more powerful than the PC.
Overall, my stand is that consoles aren't the best for gaming, if you want the real experience, go with the PC.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 12:39 |
Link to this message
|
Essentially, to have all bases covered, you need a PC and a 360, and probably a Wii too. The Wii is for the games that are Wii only (obviously), and the 360 is for the games that come out on both PC and console. The reason being that because of the ridiculously poor quality of the ports of games from console to PC, a £1000+ PC can't actually play some games to look as good as the 360 version. Ultimately though, PCs are where gaming is at.
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
since everybody seems to have a lot of this to say about this i am gonna change it to pc vs console in general and not just my pc
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
PC vs console is one of those old forum annoyances really, since a lot of people disagree on what's what. Fortunately in the PC hardware section most of us are PC nerds, so you'll probably hear most of us repeat the same argument. Ultimately though, it doesn't take a genius to realise that something built for more money than the PS3 is ultimately going to perform better than it.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mastr2142:
Originally posted by Waymon3X6:
Yes.
Think of it like this: you wont see Crysis (most graphically advance game in the world for PC) coming out for the 360 or PS3 ever.
http://www.ps3center.net/story-1578-Crys...t-Xbox-360.html
the day is coming for PS3 sad for 360:(
personally i wouldn't have a problem with this although i am still not convinced that this is true, because the ps3 in my opinion is the superior system, there is no way that it could run crysis at max though
|
