What PC hardware is as powerfull as a PS3?

Any high end card is better than PS3.

P.S.- Don't come to the PC Hardware forum to be a fanboy. Nobody likes it.

I'm not a fanboy, i don't even have a PS3, i was just curious, and then when the stupid kids in my school goes "yeah, the PS3 is 10 years ahead of everything else" i'm going to be all like "my PC is better, lulz"casparmorch

what's the point? you're no better than them

[QUOTE="casparmorch"]I'm not a fanboy, i don't even have a PS3, i was just curious, and then when the stupid kids in my school goes "yeah, the PS3 is 10 years ahead of everything else" i'm going to be all like "my PC is better, lulz"Seaole

what's the point? you're no better than them

LOL but hes right Pc is better but dont brag about it

A mid range card like a geforce 6600 beats the 360 on the textures and sharpness for distance while the 360 beats the 6600 with lighting and here some proof.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6154261/p-3.html360 is the first pic and Pc is second pic

Geforce 6600's and up to 8800'shave better textures and graphics for the most part on counterparts like FEAR etc... Now the PS3 Does have a moded geforce 7800 with 256 mb of video memory. But what holds it back is the 256 ram for the system. 04dcarraher

Problem is that while the PS3's Cell architecture is a technical feat, it basically takes someone with a master's degree to be able to make software that will actually run efficiently on it, and right now nobody seems to want to put the time and effort into making something that can run fluidly on the console (or at the least, graphically on par with the Xbox 360). Only people that are making the better looking PS3 games are all not going to be releasing them until at least when the year is done, if not next year.

The Xbox 360 may not be as technically powerful (in some aspects) as the PS3, but its API software makes it a lot easier to make use of its power and make stuff run fluidly on it.

And the other obvious advantage with a console is that at least the console hardware will get better because devs will be able to use it more efficiently. When Quake I & II both came to the n64, they definitely ran the game much better than what users who had initially bought each were able to do so, even though that console only has (by default) 4MB's of RDRAM shared between all components; and 8MB when the RAM expansion cart was added.

By the same token, Quake 3 Arena on the Sega Dreamcast was probably one of the best examples of the console's power; the system had only 16MB's of system RAM, 8MB of VRAM, and it was able to run the game with better IQ, framerate and was more feature-complete than the crippled PS2 edition, which of course was running on a system that had twice the RAM available... and the DC version natively supported a keyboard and mouse and online support.

And I can guarantee you that the Xbox 360 will certainly be able to play games like Shadowrun, Alan Wake, and even Madden better than what you could buy for a computer at the time the 360 was released. Sure, a computer may be able to eventually run the game far smoother/shinier/faster than the 360, but at what cost? Hell, just to have a computer system, monitor and speaker package that can replicate the experience an Xbox 360 with an HDTV and home theater surround sound system, the PC would set you back a few magnitudes in price more than the 360 or PS3. And just to be able to keep up in performance through the console's lifetime, you're going to be spending several times more than what the one console would cost you... which is one of the frustrating problems with PC gaming in general.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Geforce 6600's and up to 8800'shave better textures and graphics for the most part on counterparts like FEAR etc... Now the PS3 Does have a moded geforce 7800 with 256 mb of video memory. But what holds it back is the 256 ram for the system. codezer0

Problem is that while the PS3's Cell architecture is a technical feat, it basically takes someone with a master's degree to be able to make software that will actually run efficiently on it, and right now nobody seems to want to put the time and effort into making something that can run fluidly on the console (or at the least, graphically on par with the Xbox 360). Only people that are making the better looking PS3 games are all not going to be releasing them until at least when the year is done, if not next year.

The Xbox 360 may not be as technically powerful (in some aspects) as the PS3, but its API software makes it a lot easier to make use of its power and make stuff run fluidly on it.

And the other obvious advantage with a console is that at least the console hardware will get better because devs will be able to use it more efficiently. When Quake I & II both came to the n64, they definitely ran the game much better than what users who had initially bought each were able to do so, even though that console only has (by default) 4MB's of RDRAM shared between all components; and 8MB when the RAM expansion cart was added.

By the same token, Quake 3 Arena on the Sega Dreamcast was probably one of the best examples of the console's power; the system had only 16MB's of system RAM, 8MB of VRAM, and it was able to run the game with better IQ, framerate and was more feature-complete than the crippled PS2 edition, which of course was running on a system that had twice the RAM available... and the DC version natively supported a keyboard and mouse and online support.

And I can guarantee you that the Xbox 360 will certainly be able to play games like Shadowrun, Alan Wake, and even Madden better than what you could buy for a computer at the time the 360 was released. Sure, a computer may be able to eventually run the game far smoother/shinier/faster than the 360, but at what cost? Hell, just to have a computer system, monitor and speaker package that can replicate the experience an Xbox 360 with an HDTV and home theater surround sound system, the PC would set you back a few magnitudes in price more than the 360 or PS3. And just to be able to keep up in performance through the console's lifetime, you're going to be spending several times more than what the one console would cost you... which is one of the frustrating problems with PC gaming in general.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Geforce 6600's and up to 8800'shave better textures and graphics for the most part on counterparts like FEAR etc... Now the PS3 Does have a moded geforce 7800 with 256 mb of video memory. But what holds it back is the 256 ram for the system. codezer0

Problem is that while the PS3's Cell architecture is a technical feat, it basically takes someone with a master's degree to be able to make software that will actually run efficiently on it, and right now nobody seems to want to put the time and effort into making something that can run fluidly on the console (or at the least, graphically on par with the Xbox 360). Only people that are making the better looking PS3 games are all not going to be releasing them until at least when the year is done, if not next year.

The Xbox 360 may not be as technically powerful (in some aspects) as the PS3, but its API software makes it a lot easier to make use of its power and make stuff run fluidly on it.

And the other obvious advantage with a console is that at least the console hardware will get better because devs will be able to use it more efficiently. When Quake I & II both came to the n64, they definitely ran the game much better than what users who had initially bought each were able to do so, even though that console only has (by default) 4MB's of RDRAM shared between all components; and 8MB when the RAM expansion cart was added.

By the same token, Quake 3 Arena on the Sega Dreamcast was probably one of the best examples of the console's power; the system had only 16MB's of system RAM, 8MB of VRAM, and it was able to run the game with better IQ, framerate and was more feature-complete than the crippled PS2 edition, which of course was running on a system that had twice the RAM available... and the DC version natively supported a keyboard and mouse and online support.

And I can guarantee you that the Xbox 360 will certainly be able to play games like Shadowrun, Alan Wake, and even Madden better than what you could buy for a computer at the time the 360 was released. Sure, a computer may be able to eventually run the game far smoother/shinier/faster than the 360, but at what cost? Hell, just to have a computer system, monitor and speaker package that can replicate the experience an Xbox 360 with an HDTV and home theater surround sound system, the PC would set you back a few magnitudes in price more than the 360 or PS3. And just to be able to keep up in performance through the console's lifetime, you're going to be spending several times more than what the one console would cost you... which is one of the frustrating problems with PC gaming in general.

Yeah thats so true, but I just cannot play Console games again :P Im used to the mouse and keyboardSoberWarock

My first bouts of PC gaming basically came around when I was still living with my mom and brother (before they'd moved to Miami), and we got a "family" PC with a 3dfx Voodoo 3, and right around the time that Half-Life 1 was getting released. The game was great fun, but back then it chugged pretty hard even when the system was pretty bare. But I put up with it, and grew to enjoy Half Life immensely. Mostly because even though it was a pretty pokey system (even wehn it was new, it still felt slow to me), the game still actually ran well for our (at the time) low standards.

Fast Forward to now, and personally I just get disgusted with the fact that there are even $20 games now that flat out won't even run on my oldie, which I've probably dropped thousands of dollars on throughout the years with considerable overhauls and the like. I now finally have a new system (after almost four years of putting up with the degenerating oldie), but it still eats at my nerves and patience when I see a new game that i may be remotely interested in and then end up needing some god box, or in the case of FS X, find out that the only way one will be able to run it fluidly... is to get a time machine, and go to the future to get a computer strong enough.

7800GTX, CPU can't be compared because it is different from what PCs use.X360PS3AMD05

[QUOTE="SoberWarock"]Yeah thats so true, but I just cannot play Console games again :P Im used to the mouse and keyboardcodezer0

My first bouts of PC gaming basically came around when I was still living with my mom and brother (before they'd moved to Miami), and we got a "family" PC with a 3dfx Voodoo 3, and right around the time that Half-Life 1 was getting released. The game was great fun, but back then it chugged pretty hard even when the system was pretty bare. But I put up with it, and grew to enjoy Half Life immensely. Mostly because even though it was a pretty pokey system (even wehn it was new, it still felt slow to me), the game still actually ran well for our (at the time) low standards.

Fast Forward to now, and personally I just get disgusted with the fact that there are even $20 games now that flat out won't even run on my oldie, which I've probably dropped thousands of dollars on throughout the years with considerable overhauls and the like. I now finally have a new system (after almost four years of putting up with the degenerating oldie), but it still eats at my nerves and patience when I see a new game that i may be remotely interested in and then end up needing some god box, or in the case of FS X, find out that the only way one will be able to run it fluidly... is to get a time machine, and go to the future to get a computer strong enough.

[QUOTE="X360PS3AMD05"]7800GTX, CPU can't be compared because it is different from what PCs use.SoberWarock

3Ghz main core, with 3 more smaller support cores. It's seriously so much of a different structure than anything that has been put in a PC, that numbers cease to matter.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Geforce 6600's and up to 8800'shave better textures and graphics for the most part on counterparts like FEAR etc... Now the PS3 Does have a moded geforce 7800 with 256 mb of video memory. But what holds it back is the 256 ram for the system. codezer0

Problem is that while the PS3's Cell architecture is a technical feat, it basically takes someone with a master's degree to be able to make software that will actually run efficiently on it, and right now nobody seems to want to put the time and effort into making something that can run fluidly on the console (or at the least, graphically on par with the Xbox 360). Only people that are making the better looking PS3 games are all not going to be releasing them until at least when the year is done, if not next year.

The Xbox 360 may not be as technically powerful (in some aspects) as the PS3, but its API software makes it a lot easier to make use of its power and make stuff run fluidly on it.

And the other obvious advantage with a console is that at least the console hardware will get better because devs will be able to use it more efficiently. When Quake I & II both came to the n64, they definitely ran the game much better than what users who had initially bought each were able to do so, even though that console only has (by default) 4MB's of RDRAM shared between all components; and 8MB when the RAM expansion cart was added.

By the same token, Quake 3 Arena on the Sega Dreamcast was probably one of the best examples of the console's power; the system had only 16MB's of system RAM, 8MB of VRAM, and it was able to run the game with better IQ, framerate and was more feature-complete than the crippled PS2 edition, which of course was running on a system that had twice the RAM available... and the DC version natively supported a keyboard and mouse and online support.

And I can guarantee you that the Xbox 360 will certainly be able to play games like Shadowrun, Alan Wake, and even Madden better than what you could buy for a computer at the time the 360 was released. Sure, a computer may be able to eventually run the game far smoother/shinier/faster than the 360, but at what cost? Hell, just to have a computer system, monitor and speaker package that can replicate the experience an Xbox 360 with an HDTV and home theater surround sound system, the PC would set you back a few magnitudes in price more than the 360 or PS3. And just to be able to keep up in performance through the console's lifetime, you're going to be spending several times more than what the one console would cost you... which is one of the frustrating problems with PC gaming in general.

This guy is on the right track. I think it is funny that sony hyped up the ps3 so much when it is really not all that special. It has a less powerful GPU than the 360. It uses NON unified shader architecture at 24 pixel pipes vs. 360s unified shaders at 48 pixel pipes and 10mb Edram for a free (no perfomance loss) 4x antiliasing advantage. The 360 runs all the new football games, at 60fps and the PS3 with the same graphic fidelity run them at 30...?

The cell is a very powerful processor, great for hd video like blu ray to help sony push their bigger business of movies. Everyone watches movies!

This is PC board I dont care about your little mediocre console that uses a 1800xt or whatever, my 8800 GTS is a beast it will tear ur lil console apart and I do have money and I dont mind spending, seems like console fans are actually PC fans in reality that are broke and cant afford the lastest tech.deniiiii21

think someone needs to calm down.

and not to be naive, because if you read the whole forum then you would understnad the dispute a little better then you do.

i prefer pc gaming because i like using a mouse and keyboard, i have a ps2 and i have way over 100 games, but theres just something about the pc that i like more.

yes you do pay alot more for a rig. but it does so much more then just play games! i know some people keep gaming and work separate on different computers. but with the pc technology today there isnt much need to, dual core processors, dual channel ram and RAID mean that computers run more efficiently no matter what you have loaded on.

and any computer technician will know, that it is advised to back up data and format your drives and do a fresh os install every 6 months.

It's a good discussion, let's just keep it civilised, shall we? If not, it's going to be over!DirkVDV01

Yeah no need to lock up this topic because of a single guy.

RSX is similar 7800gtx but it's in closed architecture, OpenGL and combine with Cell. By good optimization, they can triple its power. Therefore, the PS3 can compare with high-end PC.Macolele

Sony is aiming touse Cell to help the RSX in thegraphics processing just like they did in the PS2, so dont worry about anything but the 256 mb ram.

RSX = 7800GTX

Cell = unknown processor, different architcture than a pc processor, its more into graphics processing than a normal pc processor.