Average GPU is 4 times more powerfull than the Ps3.

[QUOTE="Coyo7e"]I never, ever once said that. I am suggesting that we are pased the point where techinicaly superiour means anything to me. I do not find Crysis screens or STALKER screens impressive.

You can sit here and talk about how they are technically better but that won't stop a lot of us from liking what we see.

If someone does like that screen more is that not all that matters? Really, those are not impressive screens of Crysis and STALKER. More resolution and AA, more detailed textures, are technicaly more impressive, but they don't make a game look better.

foxhound_fox

I am not missing the point. We all understand what you are saying, but I am trying to talk about games and you are trying to talk about power.

NOBODY is arguing that the PC can not produce a superior image, we are just saying that we don't care.

Everyone already knows this but that does not stop those screens from looking bad.

It is kind of like this. The three new Star Wars movies use tech that was barely even dreamt of when the first three were made. But when I watch the first three they look great and I am in awe of the films, when I watch the last three I think it is all over done and looks like crap.

Artistic merit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Technical Merit.

The PC can dress a pig for the dance but it is still a pig.

Thats funny the website says that the PS3's cell is actually better in terms of overall power. In fact wasnt there an article a year ago that stated how the PS3 foldinghome generates the calculation at a rate only previously possible on supercomputers or something like that?Truth-slayer

[QUOTE="stvee101"]I'll admit that when it comes to the resolutions and textures,PC have consoles beat because of the console's measly 512mb of ram.But I still maintain that some of the animations,lighting and particle effects in the Likes of Killzone 2 are as good as anything I've sen on a PC,and in that way they're at least comparable.

I mean I look at someting like Stalker Clear Skies,and it really doesn't look that much better than say,Resident Evil 5,KZ2 etc(apart from the obvious differences in resolution and textures)

Technically PCs are ahead,thats been the case for as long as I remember,but consoles still hold their own imo.

foxhound_fox

I'm not some console fanboy,I didn't mention Crysis,because thats pretty much a given that its way ahead of consoles.I never said Console games were comparable to ALL PC games anyway so that points moot.

From the screens you gave,yes the obvious differences are the higher Resolutuions,sharper textures,AA/AF etc.On the Face of it,yes the PC games are superior graphically,except I never denied that.The gap between PC and console is noticeable,and is only getting bigger,but consoles hold their own for the most part imo.

Anyway you never clarified your original post anyway.

The PS3 isn't future-proof against what exactly? Games that look no better than Resi 5 and KZ2? I not complaining if thats the case.

Sometimes, I feel like the only person who appreciates PC and console games. :PTeufelhuhn

Hey now, I have been dishing out nothing but praise for PC games in this thread. I am dishing out hate on hermits and the power argument being what makes PC gaming so fun.

You can tell it is sincere praise, too. I am not just trying to take that high road I am so fond of mentioning.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="stvee101"]I'll admit that when it comes to the resolutions and textures,PC have consoles beat because of the console's measly 512mb of ram.But I still maintain that some of the animations,lighting and particle effects in the Likes of Killzone 2 are as good as anything I've sen on a PC,and in that way they're at least comparable.

I mean I look at someting like Stalker Clear Skies,and it really doesn't look that much better than say,Resident Evil 5,KZ2 etc(apart from the obvious differences in resolution and textures)

Technically PCs are ahead,thats been the case for as long as I remember,but consoles still hold their own imo.

stvee101

I'm not some console fanboy,I didn't mention Crysis,because thats pretty much a given that its way ahead of consoles.I never said Console games were comparable to ALL PC games anyway so that points moot.

From the screens you gave,yes the obvious differences are the higher Resolutuions,sharper textures,AA/AF etc.On the Face of it,yes the PC games are superior graphically,except I never denied that.The gap between PC and console is noticeable,and is only getting bigger,but consoles hold their own for the most part imo.

Anyway you never clarified your original post anyway.

The PS3 isn't future-proof against what exactly? Games that look no better than Resi 5 and KZ2? I not complaining if thats the case.

I think you pointed this out earlier but I will say it is also about the fact that my current PC is in the same boat as my 360 and ps3. It is about three and half years old and not near as powerful as a new PC.

They are all just computers and they all age.

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]I don't understand your point. If Consoles were upgradable thise argument would be completely useless.0rbs

The PC gets every game, one way or another.

Infact, i played mgs1 -3 on my pc, not too long ago.

I agree. All that power, and you still can't get ahold of mgs4 and littlebigplanet, i don't play my ps3 for stats, i play it for games.

:P

TC you are WAAAAY off base: 1. The folding process is done by the Cell on the PS3, not the RSX, so their are actually 7 cores to each PS3, therefore the actual amount of PS3's are 40,286 divided by 7 which= 5,755 actual PS3's. of course some of the NVIDIA GPU's could have mulitple GPU's in there are well. 2. the Folding software is made for GPU's therefore the software is optimized for GPU's, making them much more effiecient. 3. These are in no way graphical data packets been processed, so have no bering on graphical outputPOJO_MOFO

PS. As to why this is important, High-performance F@H clients like PS3 and GPU are well-reputed for maxing out whatever hardware you're using. They're doing essentially the same thing, so it provides a decent relative benchmark which helps to gague just how much computing power a system can use (and from there, just how complex a game can render--and those sub-HD PS3 renderings are a good indication that the PS3 has a few limitations that keep all games from being at least true native 1280x720p).

[QUOTE="Truth-slayer"]Thats funny the website says that the PS3's cell is actually better in terms of overall power. In fact wasnt there an article a year ago that stated how the PS3 foldinghome generates the calculation at a rate only previously possible on supercomputers or something like that?loco145

"Average GPU is 4 times more powerfull than the Ps3."

I would hope so. PC's are always getting better.

"Average GPU is 4 times more powerfull than the Ps3."

I would hope so. PC's are always getting better.

Rikusaki

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]I don't understand your point. If Consoles were upgradable thise argument would be completely useless.0rbs

I agree. All that power, and you still can't get ahold of mgs4 and littlebigplanet, i don't play my ps3 for stats, i play it for games.

:P

Very bad examples you have used if you play your PS3 for games.

Yes it doesn't look 3-4 times better than let's say MGS4 and it also costs half the PS3.

while hermits are lsorting throough the endless waves of crappy mods console gamers play games -most likely with theyre friends.

Yes it doesn't look 3-4 times better than let's say MGS4 and it also costs half the PS3.

while hermits are lsorting throough the endless waves of crappy mods console gamers play games -most likely with theyre friends.

AtrumRegina

That could just mean PS3 users just dont leave there PS3's on to fold like PC owners could be doing which is likely so dont make up your own facts that are not even relavent.wooooode

[QUOTE="wooooode"]That could just mean PS3 users just dont leave there PS3's on to fold like PC owners could be doing which is likely so dont make up your own facts that are not even relavent.Makari

funny how its not ok for PS3 owners to grab hope in the potential power of the PS3, but its completly ok for PC owners to brag about their mighty GPUs and all the power that is in them, which will never be used because of optimization. AT least we don't waste our money on something that is only going to be used at 50% of what its able to do.trasherhead

[QUOTE="trasherhead"]funny how its not ok for PS3 owners to grab hope in the potential power of the PS3, but its completly ok for PC owners to brag about their mighty GPUs and all the power that is in them, which will never be used because of optimization. AT least we don't waste our money on something that is only going to be used at 50% of what its able to do.HuusAsking

its not optimized. Lets say that they made Crysis for a 8800GTX with 1 gig ram, intel dual core and 2 gig ram. If they optimized the game for THAT setup only you would have the game run prefectly at very high. BUT thats not how you make a pc game. Without optimized code you can have a DX8 game run like crap on a GTX280 and still have the card itself run at 100%, but that wouldn't make the card run at what it could do.

Who cares as long as we get games with graphics like these

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Uncharted-characters.jpg

and this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/FOXHOUND_Unit_depicted_in_MGS4.jpg

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="trasherhead"]funny how its not ok for PS3 owners to grab hope in the potential power of the PS3, but its completly ok for PC owners to brag about their mighty GPUs and all the power that is in them, which will never be used because of optimization. AT least we don't waste our money on something that is only going to be used at 50% of what its able to do.trasherhead

its not optimized. Lets say that they made Crysis for a 8800GTX with 1 gig ram, intel dual core and 2 gig ram. If they optimized the game for THAT setup only you would have the game run prefectly at very high. BUT thats not how you make a pc game. Without optimized code you can have a DX8 game run like crap on a GTX280 and still have the card itself run at 100%, but that wouldn't make the card run at what it could do.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="wooooode"]That could just mean PS3 users just dont leave there PS3's on to fold like PC owners could be doing which is likely so dont make up your own facts that are not even relavent.HuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="wooooode"]That could just mean PS3 users just dont leave there PS3's on to fold like PC owners could be doing which is likely so dont make up your own facts that are not even relavent.Makari

I meant collectively. GPU clients now provide the majority of the F@H workload, dethroning the PS3 clients.HuusAsking