$600 PS3 vs $600 8800 GTX: An analysis 7 years later.

@True_Gamer_ said:

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

Xbox360 didnt have a GPU comparable to a PC GPU of $130.

I've never said that the 360 had a gpu comparable to a $130 pc gpu. The 360 was actually pretty cutting edge on it's release date, having a gpu with unified shaders before gpu's with such technology were available to pc's

But PS4 has a gpu that on launch is comparable to the R7 260x at $129 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150688

Now look at the 360 in 2005....In order for history to repeat itself console makes should have put stronger parts in their machines....but they went nintendo on consolites rears....I dont even want to go into what the poor Xbone is.

PS4's GCN is between R7-260X and R9-270. R9-260X is just a tweaked/renamed 7790.

Geforce 8800 GTX was the first PC GPU with 185 watts and it was the new template for PC flagship GPUs.

Next-gen console's GPU TDP stayed about 2005 levels i.e. ~90 watts for Xenos.

@ronvalencia said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

Xbox360 didnt have a GPU comparable to a PC GPU of $130.

I've never said that the 360 had a gpu comparable to a $130 pc gpu. The 360 was actually pretty cutting edge on it's release date, having a gpu with unified shaders before gpu's with such technology were available to pc's

But PS4 has a gpu that on launch is comparable to the R7 260x at $129 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150688

Now look at the 360 in 2005....In order for history to repeat itself console makes should have put stronger parts in their machines....but they went nintendo on consolites rears....I dont even want to go into what the poor Xbone is.

PS4's GCN is between R7-260X and R9-270. R9-260X is just a tweaked/renamed 7790.

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2465/radeon-r7-260x.html

1.971 Tflops The PS4 has 1.84 so ill just go and give out free 0.131 Tflops...

The 360 had 240Gflops which in 2005/Early 2006 terms translated into an X1800XTX $450 GPU....

This gen is the weakest ever...

No, PC with GCN has Mantle with GCN based console generation.I have spec'ed PC for about $450 PC with Radeon HD 7870 XT.

There's no need for i7-4770K + 780 Ti ($699) or R9 290X ($549) to beat PS4 e.g. i5-2500K + R9-290 ($399).

Note that "780 Ti" doesn't support DirectX 11.2 hardware feature level 11.1 nor tiled resource Tier 2.

.PC DIrectX 11.2 is a subset of Xbox One's DIrectX 11.X. This is one many reasons why AMD has released Mantle for PC i.e. stop MS for giving the PC a second rated graphics API.

From http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/appbuilder/archive/2013/10/14/raising-the-bar-with-direct3d.aspx

"The Xbox One graphics API is “Direct3D 11.x” and the Xbox One hardware provides a superset of Direct3D 11.2 functionality."

"We’re also working with our ISV and IHV partners on future efforts, including bringing the lightweight runtime and tooling capabilities of the Xbox One Direct3D implementation to Windows"

T

@True_Gamer_ said:

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

Xbox360 didnt have a GPU comparable to a PC GPU of $130.

I've never said that the 360 had a gpu comparable to a $130 pc gpu. The 360 was actually pretty cutting edge on it's release date, having a gpu with unified shaders before gpu's with such technology were available to pc's

But PS4 has a gpu that on launch is comparable to the R7 260x at $129 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150688

Now look at the 360 in 2005....In order for history to repeat itself console makes should have put stronger parts in their machines....but they went nintendo on consolites rears....I dont even want to go into what the poor Xbone is.

From a performance standpoint:

ps3 >> $600 pc from 2006

$1500 pc (2006) >> ps3

ps4 > $400 pc (from today, ofc.)

$1500 pc (today) >>> ps4

In that sense, I think history kind of repeats itself. But you are right, for history to repeat itself more accurately, the ps4 would have to be more powerful.

7850 with 1.76 TFLOPS has beaten higher TFLOP 7790 and R7-260X.

You haven't factored in the memory bandwidth and the benefits of having more CUs (i.e. more SRAM storage that scales with additional CUs).

i didnt know the 8800gtx could run games all by itself.

How bout we compare how well the PS 3 runs COD Ghosts compared to the 8800gtx?

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

Xbox360 didnt have a GPU comparable to a PC GPU of $130.

I've never said that the 360 had a gpu comparable to a $130 pc gpu. The 360 was actually pretty cutting edge on it's release date, having a gpu with unified shaders before gpu's with such technology were available to pc's

But PS4 has a gpu that on launch is comparable to the R7 260x at $129 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150688

Now look at the 360 in 2005....In order for history to repeat itself console makes should have put stronger parts in their machines....but they went nintendo on consolites rears....I dont even want to go into what the poor Xbone is.

From a performance standpoint:

ps3 >> $600 pc from 2006

$1500 pc (2006) >> ps3

ps4 > $400 pc (from today, ofc.)

$1500 pc (today) >>> ps4

In that sense, I think history kind of repeats itself. But you are right, for history to repeat itself more accurately, the ps4 would have to be more powerful.

You dont say anything about the 360. Which was like

360>>>>$1000 PC from 2005

The PS4 is PoS compared to the monster that the 360 was in 2005.

In today's terms the PS4 would have to have an R9 290 which of course would lead to at LEAST $850 manufacturing costs....

@True_Gamer_ said:

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

@miiiiv said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

Xbox360 didnt have a GPU comparable to a PC GPU of $130.

I've never said that the 360 had a gpu comparable to a $130 pc gpu. The 360 was actually pretty cutting edge on it's release date, having a gpu with unified shaders before gpu's with such technology were available to pc's

But PS4 has a gpu that on launch is comparable to the R7 260x at $129 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150688

Now look at the 360 in 2005....In order for history to repeat itself console makes should have put stronger parts in their machines....but they went nintendo on consolites rears....I dont even want to go into what the poor Xbone is.

From a performance standpoint:

ps3 >> $600 pc from 2006

$1500 pc (2006) >> ps3

ps4 > $400 pc (from today, ofc.)

$1500 pc (today) >>> ps4

In that sense, I think history kind of repeats itself. But you are right, for history to repeat itself more accurately, the ps4 would have to be more powerful.

You dont say anything about the 360. Which was like

360>>>>$1000 PC from 2005

The PS4 is PoS compared to the monster that the 360 was in 2005.

In today's terms the PS4 would have to have an R9 290 which of course would lead to at LEAST $850 manufacturing costs....

Name a better GPU at about 100 watts.

Xbox 360's Xenos has about 90 watts TDP while Radeon X1900 XT has 100 watts.

------------------

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2gbCy

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2gbCy/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 740 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($74.99 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A55M-HD2 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($42.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.45 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.99 @ Newegg)

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 290 4GB Video Card ($405.91 @ Newegg)

Case: Sentey CS1-1398 PLUS ATX Mid Tower Case ($11.25 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX750B BRONZE 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ Newegg)

Optical Drive: Lite-On iHOS104-08 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Drive ($52.37 @ Amazon)

Total: $752.94

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-06 19:42 EST-0500)

I have GTA V for the PS3. But when GTA V comes to the PC (you know it's coming). Guess which one version will be better? One thing I didn't like about the 8800 series is that there seems to be high failure rate, as mentioned by you and other's who also had a 8800. I think it has to do with the defective die packaging of nVidia GPU's of the 7000/8000 series. I had a 17" gaming laptop with a Gefore Go 7600 and my entire laptop was wasted due to the defective die packaging which I am still pissed off at nVidia for. When your GPU dies inside a laptop your entire laptop is wasted, it's not like a desktop where you can just replace the graphics card.

But they did get the BEST gaming experience possible at least through 2006-2009. Pretty much all games with the exception of Crysis and Crysis Warhead ran at maxed out at 1080P. Games like Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2, Assassins Creed, Mass Effect, the list goes on and on. Maybe in the later games, like in 2013 they may had to drop it down to 720P. But even 2013 games a 8800 GTX would have ran better than a PS3, look at Bioshock Infinite running on a 8800 GTS and 1440x900. You still got the best experience for at least 3+ years.

Hmm...didn't know that intel's IGP team was made out of VLIW5 ex AMD guys and 3DLabs guys, that's quite interesting. I for one would LOVE to see intel produce discrete GPU's. I just think they will suck at it. I would love to see them bleed cash as much as possible to make the best GPU. It would maybe take them down a notch and help AMD if intel is busy throwing hundreds of millions in R&D with trying to make the best GPU.

They don't really have a good track record. Look at the i740 GPU they released in the late 90's. Got severly whooped by nVIdia, ATI and 3DFX GPU's. intel went back with their tails between their legs, fast forward 10 years later in 2008/2009, their Larrabee (or Laughabee as nVidia's CEO called it, lol) didn't even make to market because it was that pathetic. intel didn't wan't to embarass themselves infront of AMD and nVidia and decided to quitely go away and never talk about releasing it for PC Gamers.

Ex-VLIW5 Radeon HD + ex-3D Labs employees with Intel's cash would be different from i740 situation. Intel also has it's own "the way it's meant to be played" with Intel InstantAccess and Pixelsync.

Yes, you are right, the ps4 is much weaker for it's time than the 360 was for it's time, the 360 was extremely powerful back in 2005.

I would have rather bought a 8800 GT and upgrade about 3-4 years down the road.

And the funny fact is that NEVER in any gen the console makers didnt put such weak parts in their machines....

For christs sake 1.8 Tflops 295 from FIVE years ago....http://www.gpureview.com/GeForce-GTX-295-card-603.html

Imagine if MS launched the 360 with a GPU from 2000....god...

The GTX 295 was a dual gpu card and to the fact that you cant directly compare Nvidia vs ATI/AMD gpu TFLOP or GFLOP numbers so you cant really use that as an example. Because as an example the GTX 480 was a 1.3 TFLOP gpu but yet it is almost as fast as an AMD 7870 which is a 2.5 TFLOP gpu.

The PC was better in every way.

Better gfx, more fps, best multiplats, more exclusives, most total games, best online.

When $1000+ PCs look better its aint that big of a deal. When $600 PCs at LAUNCH look better then you have MS/Sony going nintendo on your ass.

I think MS and Sony got tired of selling for such huge losses. Even if they wanted to go higher end they couldnt have. High end components are just too big and power hungry now.

How is that all ? I seriously wonder

Do you only play GOTY and 10/10 games or something? You must not have played a lot of games this gen.

Its all about money power hunger and size aint the reason http://www.hidevolution.com/alienware-18-hid3-nvidia-dual-sli-gtx-780m-gaming-laptop.html

gosh, this stupid thread is still alive?

Good thread.

It's also worth mentioning that despite the higher initial cost of entry, PC gaming over the course of a 7 year span is usually cheaper than console gaming.

1.) You're not paying the peripheral tax. $100 for a wifi adapter or $150 for a 60GB HDD for the 360 for example. Nextgen console controllers are what? $60 each. You can't use the fight sticks you may have paid $150 just months ago to play KI or Injustice because those sticks are incompatible with the One and PS4 for no reason other than profiteering.

All of the USB and BT wheels, arcade sticks and controllers you already own or have bought over the last decade (and further back) will work for current and upcoming games on your PC. For me personally, that's a lot of money I would save if I only gamed on PC. I have 2 Madcatz TE arcade sticks and one HRAP3. All will work on my PC's forever. Yet I won't be able to use them on my PS4 or One until someone makes a custom PCB and I mod my stick OR drop another $200+ on a new stick. There is value to that.

2.) Games tend to be cheaper on PC and tend to be discounted sooner on PC. I got Tomb Raider and Borderlands 2 + Season Pass for $30 each by PRE-ORDERING them. Where console gamers had to drop $60 each for them if they wanted them on day one. Just one example of many. There is value to that.

3.) Infinite backwards compatibility. I can play Battlefield 4 (2013 release) right now, then close it and play Elder Scrolls: Morrowind (2002 release) or Tie Fighter (1994 release). How many decades back can I go on the Xbox One? How about the PS4? Hell, I can't even play the big 2013 PS360 releases let alone hoping to play Halo 1, Ninja Gaiden Black or Devil May Cry 3 without keeping my old 360 and PS3. Things that you just shrug and accept on consoles don't have to be accepted on PC. Games I play today on my PC will still work on my Steam account in 2030. There is value to that.

4.) The game experience in general tends to be better. Whether you're connected to a monitor or television...whether you're playing with KB&M, stick, wheel, or controller you'll be pleased. And you get to do it with higher settings than consoles (typically) and at 60fps. There's nothing like gaming at 1080p and 60 or 120 fps, and frankly it's a jarring experience when you have to step back down to 30fps. As an example, I played all of my AC games on PC. I decided to pick up Black Flag on my PS4 since I got it for $30. While it's every bit as beautiful and colorful as the PC version, the 30fps is jarring if you're not used to 30fps as most PC gamers aren't anymore. Gaming really is best at 60fps for most genres. So on PC you have access to higher visual detail and effects, more options, higher framerates, and the controller/input devices of your choice.

5.) You can experience and enjoy genres that simply don't exist on consoles. Your MOBA games (Dota 2, League of Legends, SMITE, Heroes of the Storm, HoN, etc.) and RTS games (StarCraft, Warhammer, Sins of a Solar Emprie, WarCraft, etc.) for example, simply can't be done well on consoles. Some have tried and mostly failed. Just not enough buttons and not enough speed. Dota2 and League of Legends combine for something like 70 million unique players annually and host the highest prizepool tournaments in the gaming world. $1,000,000+. Games that console-only gamers have probably never even heard of. Sad.

6.) Gaming online is free. FREE. There is value in that, and it's even clearer now that both of the main nextGen consoles have put online gaming behind a paywall.

So yea. I'd suggest to anyone here that the up front cost of buying a PC that can handle modern games (or upgrading what you already have which is usually all that is required) is more than made up for in lower costs for games, more flexibility for high-priced peripherals, infinite backwards compatibility and more gaming options at higher resolutions and framerates. Honestly, were it not for choice exclusives on the PS4 and One, I wouldn't have purchased either. But they are worth owning for those exclusives IMO.

Hypothetically, if you spent $1200 for a serious PC and kept it as-is for 7 years, your cost of ownership (hardware) over a PS4 or One would be about $0.03/day. I think many would agree that 3 cents for 1080p+, 60fps+, infinite BC and no limitations on your controllers of choice is more than worth it. Hell, by the time you add on the price of Live/PSN+, it all evens out anyway...and again, that's before discussing the lower prices of the games on PC and not having to re-buy peripherals because of imposed backwards compatibility limitations.

Feel free to disagree. As one who's owned every major console for the last 25 years and a PC, I think I've seen enough of the gaming world to have formed this conclusion. But I'll never go without my consoles. Gotta have those exclusives!

And now add up all the problems you get with PC gaming. It can be a real pain just to get the game running.

Anyway, I tried to run Fifa 14 on my old pc with an 8800 gtx and a crap Athlon 64 x2, and it lagged so badly no matter what I did. So if you were so unlucky to buy a PC with a crap CPU, you are most likely struggling with the latest games, even if it's not the GPU's fault.

@Xtasy26: I think making the assumption that someone has a good desktop base to upgrade is the a pretty big one. Walk into an electronics store (or even online) and you will find that the great majority of computers being sold are laptops of some description. This has been the case for quite a number of years now.

Size determines cost. Which is obvious when you consider a desktop at half the price could outperfom that laptop.

360 was comparable to a high end pc in 2005 partly because high end desktop components were much smaller in 2005. Using desktop style components saves lots of money.

On rendering workloads, 480 can still keep up with 7870 GE.

The only time where FLOPS (not integers) are similar levels are Kepler and GCN.

On integer based GpGPU workloads, GCN murders Kepler and Fermi.

@

GTX 780M consumes about 100 watts each and it's a premium speed bin silicon i.e. http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-780M.88993.0.html

On Battlefield 4(from notebookcheck.com), GTX 780M is about on par with desktop 660 Ti i.e. 12 precent higher than 7970M which is based on down-clocked desktop 7870 GE. PS4's GCN is based down-clocked desktop 7870 GE parts.

7870 GE's die size is 212 mm^2.

GTX 780M's die size is 295 mm^2.

But what about the $500 PS3? Never understood why the belief has always been that the PS3 cost $600 when you could get one for $100 cheaper. Guess if they made an 80gb sku at launch, everybody would ignore there was a $600 version as well as a $500 version.

@

But you are forgetting that intel tried recently to get into the discrete GPU space with their Larrabee GPU that was aimed at PC Gamers. You don't have to go back to late 90's to see how the did with discrete GPU's. I would love to see intel go into the discrete GPU game, simply because of the fact it will drain more resources from intel and that will hopefully give AMD a better chance to fight them. But right now looks like they won't touch the discrete GPU space with a 10 foot pole because intel knows they SUCK at it.

That was one of the most disapponting things about the recent console launches is that they put in such weak parts. Especially coming from M$. Seriously, you know you put in a JOKE of a GPU when you can't even run Cod Ghost at 1080P. That's just laughable. I would call it the ultimate insult to not able to run a game that's based of a heavily modified 14 year old engine at 1080P. I personally feel bad for the Xbox fanboys. Xbox 360 had a great GPU like you mentioned, the Xenos was more powerful GPU than any ATI GPU's that came out in 2005. ATI's most powerful GPU at the time was the X1800XT and the Xenos would have easily beat it.