|
Console vs PC
|
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
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.
lol ya, but i think that is good for people to hear both sides of the arfument so that they can make a valid decision of there own
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
The PS3 isn't going to be producing graphics equal in quality to the very high setting for Vista. Based on the hardware inside it, I reckon it could run the game, but on a low detail setting.
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
although i dont think high i think that low settings is a bit of an understatment i would say medium but again i question the validity of these comments about a ps3 port.
just wondering does ps3/360 have anykind of random access memory
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 13:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
PS3 has 256MB.
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 14:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
really
how does it run any game with that, i now that there are no backround programs but a lot of games take up 700 on xp
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 14:39 |
Link to this message
|
Stalker at maximum detail uses 1.8GB of RAM on its own, let alone background programs...
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
exactly my point even games that have worse graphics then ps3 games like css can take 300mb so how does it only use 256
|
Junior Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 14:53 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
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.
i dont know if all PC's are capable of out running a PS3...for example try running folding@home on ur PC and watch the progress compared to wen ran on a PS3...the PS3 beats my Core2Duo E6600 at 3.2 ghz, with 2 gig ram clkd at 4-4-4-12
havnt read anything wen it comes to quadcores
|
Member
|
27. January 2008 @ 15:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
that is due to there cell proccessor but we are talking about actuall gameabillity and also try running to programs at once with a ps3 i doubt you could do that with 256 mb ram
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 17:43 |
Link to this message
|
Master, you must have a crap graphics card. The Folding at home team said that anyone running a X1800 XT will fold more than a PS3. Most of the Folding done my the PS3 is due to its GPU not CPU. In fact compared to an E6750 the cell CPU is not as efficient in real world applications. It only has one core after all...
As for you guys all blabbering about the PS3 being much better than the 360, consider this. While the PS3s CPU is more powerful than the 360's, the 360 GPU is more powerful than the PS3's.
What do you think Crysis stresses more? The GPU or the CPU?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 17:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
GPU - no question about it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 17:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
It was a rhetorical question... lol
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 18:12 |
Link to this message
|
Only up to a point though, Crysis rapes CPUs pretty hard.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
27. January 2008 @ 20:38 |
Link to this message
|
Yes, but as far as Crysis goes the 360 would be the logical choice. Especially since it would be much easier to port it to the 360, since it runs DirectX 9.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
28. January 2008 @ 07:46 |
Link to this message
|
No 1080p?
Trust me if Gran Turismo 5 does 1080p (Confirmed) with so much detail at 60fps non stop in gameplay, then trust me any other title would be able to do it.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 08:28 |
Link to this message
|
trust me, GT5 probably has less demanding textures than Crysis.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 09:12 |
Link to this message
|
Do you realize HOW MUCH Sony has confirmed and NEVER actually done it.
Did you know that the PS2 was supposed to have Toy Story like graphics? That the PS3 was going to have two extra gigabut ports, two extra USB ports, an extra HDMI port, and support for seven controllers. They promised 1080p for all games, while COD4 only runs at 600p.
They also they they couldn't implement rumble tech because of their gay ass six-axis thing. Did you see how that went? They still wont include those controllers in the new PS3s but they are willing to sell them now. So what happened to six axis not working with rumble?
Don't believe Sony, they're the biggest pacl of liars in the Electronic Industry. You can't call me biased either because I have all the Play Station consoles.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 12:42 |
Link to this message
|
No, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, Sony are a terrible company in that sense.
|
Member
|
28. January 2008 @ 15:13 |
Link to this message
|
there is no wuestion that gt5 id less demanding than crysis, even though it looks good there is a tiny universe and fairly simple things
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
28. January 2008 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
this is one thing i will beleive because gt4 ran 1080i on ps2.
No i never knew that, i doubt we will get a game as good looking as toy story in years to come right now not even a pc game is close, if crysis is the top then we are very far away :)
60fps in cod4? arent most console games fps limited to make sure it always stays stable and not jump from 80 to 40 here and there?
If some of you played GT4 on Ps2 that game looked great, GT5 has as many polygons in one cars headlight as Gt4 did in the whole car this is not a sony thing this was said by the Creator of the series which is why it takes Months to draw a car.
But last gen to this gen is nothing like 5th to 6th gen was we came from a blocked up image to having smooth nice detailed things on screen with shadows, reflections, 6th to 7th it is the main thing I can see lighting, and shadows, reflections have improved nothing else.
Crysis is a good game but I think it wasnt made properly,
1: It takes more resources then youd expect and most of which are graphics making it hard to run.
2: The game is filled with glitches and bugs, I had to get a 3rd level save because I was standing on the rendezvous point with nothing happening and I asked and got told it happends and its a glithc the only way to pass it is by getting a save, never have I seen a game do this.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 20:02 |
Link to this message
|
hah, GT4 only supported 1080i for the US version..
no HD gran turismo for us in the UK... :(
As for the frame rate, it drops below 20 with a lot of xbox 360 games, so no. The consoles just aren't powerful enough to maintain a solid frame rate/
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 20:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I thought GT4 was only HD on the PS3...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 20:10 |
Link to this message
|
Nope, the US PS2 could do it over component.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
28. January 2008 @ 20:26 |
Link to this message
|
Nope Ps2 ran Gt4 HD for the NTSC version, I have not clue why our PAL versions didnt get it.
It ran it at 1080i.
Thats a good exanple to show if everything is coded properly and effeciently it will run this is something that can be said for Crysis.
Because even if GT4 dosent look amazing anymore, for a ps2 game it does and still looks good compared to others, but you have to remember what hardware this game runs on, at 1080i no lag at all, and some of the levels look amazing like the rally ones in italy next to the sea, that's right I forgot about that GT is detailed even the tracks look at those levels how detailed they are, every building looks like its apart of the game its not like a game where the car looks cool but evrything else looks crap everything matches and the crowds well in GT4 they were sort of 3D but in GTHD they are all 3D every person has his own shadow.
Anyways back to Gt4 it ran on a 300mhz CPU, 16mb RDRAM, 143mhz GPU.
If that was done on that at 30fps at 1080i, I have not one doubt that GT5 Will look amazing on Ps3 its not as powerfull as the latest PC but compare it to a PS2 its what 30 or 40x more power full.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. January 2008 @ 20:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
It has to be said though, the last time I booted up GT4 I thought to myself "holy cow, the game looked this bad?"
I've been spoilt by PC graphics, and with any luck in a few hours' time I'll be spoiled again... :)
|
