PC v PS3 question

I remember not all games run at the full 1080p, so they need to run some of the PS3 games at 720p (which is 1280 x 720 resolution) - so that's sort of one reason. In some cases, some of the PS3 games are optimized specifically for the PS3's hardware itself... unlike PC where they need to be able to scale the image quality.

This guy is just trolling people. He knows the PC has better graphics, hence Dx10. PS3 cant do that and I think that ends this conversation.  Plus Im still wondering why he only gets 4900 in 3dmark06 witha 8800gts9mmSpliff

cuz hes on vista 64 bit probably

Fanboys need to DIE! :evil:

Fanboys need to DIE! :evil:

AARONRULZ1

[QUOTE="AARONRULZ1"]

Fanboys need to DIE! :evil:

jjj13

lol

[QUOTE="AARONRULZ1"]

Fanboys need to DIE! :evil:

jjj13

Fanboys need to DIE! :evil:

AARONRULZ1

im a gaming fanboy. you need to go poop. jk

Can anyone explain why a PS3 has much better graphics than a current top end (say conroe + geforce 8800 gtx) PC ?DBROWN9

Can anyone explain why a PS3 has much better graphics than a current top end (say conroe + geforce 8800 gtx) PC ?DBROWN9

No, I can't, because it don't. :D

ok let's compare the hardware gpu (this is comparable), the ps3 gpu is based on the nvidia G70 architecture, has 256 mb GDDR3 ram clocked at 650 MHz, memory clock speed at 1.3 GHz, that pretty much shares the stats of the 7800 series. Couple that with support for DirectX 9c and SM 3.0.

Now lets go on to what's up with the pcs! Oh wait, the current king of the hill, the g80 statistically destroys the 7800 in every benchmark, its 128 stream processor trumps the RSX's 24 pixel pipelines and 8 vertex pipelines, bandwidth bitrate is only 1/4 of the g80, 256 mb vs 768 mb RAM, oh and dx10 support on the g80, 364 GFLOPS vs the 518.4 GFLOPS on the 8800 GTX, lets not even fathom how much the r600 is gonna do likewise, as it already beats the 8800s in the own right already. Besides, wasn't there a Gamespot feature noting how the g80 was twice as powerful as the RSX?

PCs were outperforming consoles ages ago... Heck, my age old X1900 XTX trumps the PS3.

What is neat about the PS3 is its CPU. With proper coding, that CPU is really powerful. 

Though the 8800GTX can easily cut through 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 resolutions, while consoles are still chugging along at 1280x720.

1280x720= not even 1million pixels
1920x1200= 2.3million pixels
2560x1600= 4.1million pixels

Though the 8800GTX can easily cut through 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 resolutions, while consoles are still chugging along at 1280x720.

1280x720= not even 1million pixels
1920x1200= 2.3million pixels
2560x1600= 4.1million pixels

LordEC911

with higher AA and AF to boot, at those resolutions. 

The main reasons games don't look quite as good on the PC as the consoles are because PC developers have to program for a wide array of possible hardware configs while the consoles are closed boxes that don't change from user to user so the developer can squeeze more out with little risk. and to increase sales PC developers have to program for the mass market, which generally doesn't have $400-$600 video card. Sure they COULD make the greatest looking game that maybe 10,000 will be able to play and therefor end up buying, but then they'd have to charge nearly what their target audience paid for their high end video card, or take a huge loss and possibly go under.JD138

Thank god for developers like Crytek then eh? they won't "sacrifice" the max potential of Crysis, and at the same time cater to the mainstream as well, promising rigs 2-3 years old being able to play it. Consoles can't touch the graphics of that game, and with the current news that when Crysis comes out, there won't be any rig that can "max" it out so to speak, it has hidden settings that, when the graphics technology catches up to what the crytek developers envisions, will be unlocked and will be more spectacular than the awesomeness we see right now. Forward thinking + extra longevity = mind-blowing.

[QUOTE="JD138"]The main reasons games don't look quite as good on the PC as the consoles are because PC developers have to program for a wide array of possible hardware configs while the consoles are closed boxes that don't change from user to user so the developer can squeeze more out with little risk. and to increase sales PC developers have to program for the mass market, which generally doesn't have $400-$600 video card. Sure they COULD make the greatest looking game that maybe 10,000 will be able to play and therefor end up buying, but then they'd have to charge nearly what their target audience paid for their high end video card, or take a huge loss and possibly go under.jfelisario

Thank god for developers like Crytek then eh? they won't "sacrifice" the max potential of Crysis, and at the same time cater to the mainstream as well, promising rigs 2-3 years old being able to play it. Consoles can't touch the graphics of that game, and with the current news that when Crysis comes out, there won't be any rig that can "max" it out so to speak, it has hidden settings that, when the graphics technology catches up to what the crytek developers envisions, will be unlocked and will be more spectacular than the awesomeness we see right now. Forward thinking + extra longevity = mind-blowing.

Unfortunately, hardly any developers are now PC exclusive, since there is a lot of money to be made in the console market - especially since last year console games outsold PC games 4:1.