How much better is a 2011 High Spec PC than a PS3/360?

multiple instances is the ONLY way to measure... because its the only way to measure performance across all aspects of the game.

And I understand it looks better... I have a gaming PC. Does it look better than consoles? hell yes... do i wish console games looked like PC games? hell yes. But its not a massive difference that i find hinders the console experience in any major way (except maybe the wii, that crap is pretty blurry). And i dont think PC games are some ridiculous multiplier of better graphics.

at some point there has to be a limit of what resolution and fps can net you.... unless you play with jewelers goggles on.

markinthedark

It's not a good way to measure.

The jump from PS2 to PS3 is huge yet the PS3 could probably only a handle a few instances of God of War 2.

It wouldn't mean the PS3 is only a few times more powerful than the PS2.

And I do agree that just because the consoles look much worse doesn't hinder the gameplay.

I still play my DS all the time and love it.

Also a human eye can determine the difference in pixels to such a high count that it's ludicrous to think we will have displays capable of that for the public in any near future.

I can spot a dead pixel on a 1080P monitor and it becomes an eye sore to see.

And I see a huge difference from 720P to even 1680x1050.

Someone who is used to only playing 720P or lower might not mind but I do.

Jagged Edges are also a big eye sore.

"Better" is so subjective.

How about I throw some numbers at you.

PS3 will have 1 new Uncharted, 1 new LBP, 1 new Last Guardian, 1 new Resistance, 1 new Killzone, 1 inFamous, 1 Yakuza, among other games.

PC will be getting zero of those.

Mrmccormo

yes. that's just 7 reasons why PC is better, but that's not what this topic is about, you silly fanboy.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

the pc could do multiple instances all it would need is huge amount of ram. Think about it this way, xbox 360/ps3 have 512mb of ram, a high spec pc has about 12 GB or more. The quality of most xbox/ps3 games are approximately 1024 X 800 at low to medium settings. A single 6850 video card can run eyefinity, which is the support of 3 monitors at the same time or a resolution of 5700 X 2500 or some crazy resolution like that and run games decently. Think about what a higher spec video card like the 580 GTX monstrosity or a 6970 could do. This is the reality.

markinthedark

No CPU and FSB would be limited, it cant process that many frames. In fact the lower resolution you run, the more of a bottleneck your cpu becomes. This is reality.

similar to GPUs, cpus have more or less run out of speed, so they just keep slapping on more and more cores. SLI exists because GPU manufacturers were having problems making faster GPUs.

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

So following your logic...

You say that the three core processor in the XBOX is more powerful than an I5 dual core because it has more cores?

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

markinthedark

There is something like that but I don't think windows can handle the thread count because the presentation I saw on youtube was done in a linux OS and was 80 threads.

Also Black Ops is badly unoptimized.

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

markinthedark

ever heard of hyperthreading? google it, i dare you.

but 12 instances of any game would cause problems, even if you had enough cores to handle it.

So following your logic...

You say that the three core processor in the XBOX is more powerful than an I5 dual core because it has more cores?

fireballonfire

Yah he forgets that there have been massive changes with CPUs.

Architecture is more important now.

[QUOTE="soulitane"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

multiple instances is the ONLY way to measure... because its the only way to measure performance across all aspects of the game.

And I understand it looks better... I have a gaming PC. Does it look better than consoles? hell yes... do i wish console games looked like PC games? hell yes. But its not a massive difference that i find hinders the console experience in any major way (except maybe the wii, that crap is pretty blurry). And i dont think PC games are some ridiculous multiplier of better graphics.

markinthedark

it might not be a very good example... but it is the best example. There is no better measurement in terms of power.

PC will never be very optimized, for the simple fact that its not designed around gaming... and its bogged down with a big OS and a ton of other software. And frankly... even at the hardware level, alot of PC components just arent able to advance at the rate of some others. The reason you can put 3 GPUs on a single mobo isnt because GPU technology was advancing too rapidly, its because because they were running out of ideas on how to speed up your rig.

And whether or not you have 3 GPUs or 1... your CPU will remain the same speed. So while one component of your rig may triple... nothing else advances... and just because 1 component triple in power... doesnt mean your entire rig is 3x as powerful.

a proper power comparison would test all aspects of your rig... not just one component.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

the pc could do multiple instances all it would need is huge amount of ram. Think about it this way, xbox 360/ps3 have 512mb of ram, a high spec pc has about 12 GB or more. The quality of most xbox/ps3 games are approximately 1024 X 800 at low to medium settings. A single 6850 video card can run eyefinity, which is the support of 3 monitors at the same time or a resolution of 5700 X 2500 or some crazy resolution like that and run games decently. Think about what a higher spec video card like the 580 GTX monstrosity or a 6970 could do. This is the reality.

fireballonfire

No CPU and FSB would be limited, it cant process that many frames. In fact the lower resolution you run, the more of a bottleneck your cpu becomes. This is reality.

similar to GPUs, cpus have more or less run out of speed, so they just keep slapping on more and more cores. SLI exists because GPU manufacturers were having problems making faster GPUs.

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

So following your logic...

You say that the three core processor in the XBOX is more powerful than an I5 dual core because it has more cores?

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

I think it's safer to look at things this way, a high end PC is indeed up to 20 times faster than consoles at certain tasks but maybe only eight times more efficient at others. So round this out and you get 14 times the performance.

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

markinthedark

What you should be getting at is that your cpu has to be powerful enough to not bottleneck anything else in your system just like every other piece of hardware.

Otherwise things like your GPU will not be able to perform at it's best.

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

markinthedark

that's pretty extreme example, but you're right. then again, two-way SLI significantly increases gaming performance. obviously doesn't double the performance, since GPU =/= rig.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

Hakkai007

There is something like that but I don't think windows can handle the thread count because the presentation I saw on youtube was done in a linux OS and was 80 threads.

Also Black Ops is badly unoptimized.

i get black ops is poorly optimized, i dont know that for a fact but i trust you.

all im saying is when you get to ridiculous standards like 24 core cpus and 3 gpus in sli... we are pretty much talking a server now, and not a PC... P standing for personal.

and yes, alot of servers are unix based.... so i could see why some crazy setup like that would be run on linux.

that's pretty extreme example, but you're right. then again, two-way SLI significantly increases gaming performance. obviously doesn't double the performance, since GPU =/= rig.

groowagon

The 6900 series is pretty close to doubling performance.

For some reason they received really good drivers for crossfire.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

Hakkai007

What you should be getting at is that your cpu has to be powerful enough to not bottleneck anything else in your system just like every other piece of hardware.

Otherwise things like your GPU will not be able to perform at it's best.

A good I7 CPU will not bottleneck two 480 gtx cards in SLI but might bottleneck a 3 x480 gtx GPU setup in certain game applications.

[QUOTE="groowagon"]

that's pretty extreme example, but you're right. then again, two-way SLI significantly increases gaming performance. obviously doesn't double the performance, since GPU =/= rig.

Hakkai007

The 6900 series is pretty close to doubling performance.

For some reason they received really good drivers for crossfire.

that's pretty nice! but with that good drivers, it just doubles graphics performance (your usual gaming bottleneck), not the whole rig.

i get black ops is poorly optimized, i dont know that for a fact but i trust you.

all im saying is when you get to ridiculous standards like 24 core cpus and 3 gpus in sli... we are pretty much talking a server now, and not a PC... P standing for personal.

and yes, alot of servers are unix based.... so i could see why some crazy setup like that would be run on linux.

markinthedark

Well the thing is that games are barely setting quad core as a standard.

Which is why you won't see much of an improvement if you are using a 6 core or the new 8 core setups coming out soon.

The CPU is not exactly being stressed in most games unless it is highly unoptimized.

Most of the time it's really not even GPU intensive.

Which is why console multiplats that come out to PC get modded treatment.

People have so much more leg room with most multiplats that they can crank up very high resolutions with 3-6 monitor setups and also add high AA like 32X.

Heck my old 2007 PC can run Devil May Cry 4 maxed out at 16xQCSAA and it is smooth as butter still.

that's pretty nice! but with that good drivers, it just doubles graphics performance, not the whole rig.

groowagon

But gaming performance is the main thing we are talking about.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

Hakkai007

What you should be getting at is that your cpu has to be powerful enough to not bottleneck anything else in your system just like every other piece of hardware.

Otherwise things like your GPU will not be able to perform at it's best.

that is what ive been trying to get at. Which is why maybe a triple SLI rig can push some crazy polygons and resolutions.... but it cant run multiple instances... because cpu dependent operations would be bottlenecking the system. And if all the components arent 12x as powerful, then the system isnt 12x as powerful.

which is why multiple instances of a program is the best example of showing total system processing power. It takes into account things like load times, and AI routines... which are gaming aspects that the GPU doesnt control.

that is what ive been trying to get at. Which is why maybe a triple SLI rig can push some crazy polygons and resolutions.... but it cant run multiple instances... because cpu dependent operations would be bottlenecking the system. And if all the components arent 12x as powerful, then the system isnt 12x as powerful.

which is why multiple instances of a program is the best example of showing total system processing power. It takes into account things like load times, and AI routines... which are gaming aspects that the GPU doesnt control.

markinthedark

No it's not the best example.

The way games are coded for running on a CPU is why it's not a good example.

And there is no way for a console to run multiple games at once so it's stacking the deck.

[QUOTE="groowagon"]

that's pretty nice! but with that good drivers, it just doubles graphics performance, not the whole rig.

Hakkai007

But gaming performance is the main thing we are talking about.

Look at it this way. Such a PC would be able play a game at twice the resolution and framerate that a console can manage at settings which are on average two to three levels higher. Each increasing "level" of those settings can double the workload caused by that particular graphical function.

My "midrange from 2009" PC can do all that with the exception of the doubled framerate.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i get black ops is poorly optimized, i dont know that for a fact but i trust you.

all im saying is when you get to ridiculous standards like 24 core cpus and 3 gpus in sli... we are pretty much talking a server now, and not a PC... P standing for personal.

and yes, alot of servers are unix based.... so i could see why some crazy setup like that would be run on linux.

Hakkai007

Well the thing is that games are barely settings quad core as a standard.

Which is why you won't see much of an improvement if you are using a 6 core or the new 8 core setups coming out soon.

The CPU is not exactly being stressed in most games unless it is highly unoptimized.

Most of the time it's really GPU intensive.

Which is why console multiplats that come out to PC get modded treatment.

People have so much more leg room with most multiplats that they can crank up very high resolutions with 3-6 monitor setups and also add high AA like 32X.

Heck my old 2007 PC can run Devil May Cry 4 maxed out at 16xQCSAA and it is smooth as butter still.

Well alot of the stuff, like resolution, AA and various effects are all GPU based... which is where the PC majorly benefits from having an insane gpu, or 3 of them.

but it still cant run multiple instances well due to the cpu limiter... so while it can perform some functions insanely better than a console... it doesnt have a major advantage in alot of other components... which prevents it from being comically better than consoles, like alot of folks like to think. Having a gpu 2x as powerful, doesnt mean your rig is 2x as powerful.

and frankly i find there is a limit to how much AA and resolution can honestly benefit me. And you are right about the cpu cores not being taken advantage of,,, i assumed black ops takes advantage of 2 cores, which is why it would need 24 cores to run 12 instances. If devs took advantage of more cores it would help... but like SLI 2 graphics cards does not = double the performance of 1.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

groowagon

that's pretty extreme example, but you're right. then again, two-way SLI significantly increases gaming performance. obviously doesn't double the performance, since GPU =/= rig.

[QUOTE="groowagon"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

this is not my logic... PCs obviously have more powerful cpus than consoles... im just saying... if you cpu is only 3x as powerful and your gpu setup is 12x as powerful... the net result of how much more powerful your rig is... lies somewhere in the middle.

The single greatest difference in processing power of 1 component does not in anyway, signify the total processing power advantage.

Teufelhuhn

that's pretty extreme example, but you're right. then again, two-way SLI significantly increases gaming performance. obviously doesn't double the performance, since GPU =/= rig.

mod agrees, i win.

i assumed black ops takes advantage of 2 cores, which is why it would need 24 cores to run 12 instances. If devs took advantage of more cores it would help... but like SLI 2 graphics cards does not = double the performance of 1.

markinthedark

That is not how CPU loads work.

Also the new 6900 series drivers just about double performance.

But it will depend on the game.

mod agrees, i win.

markinthedark

I don't think you even understand what he means by that or you wouldn't have declared victory.....

ok lets do the basic math. xbox 360 games run at 1024 X 800 resolution medium quality. 1 single 6850 card can do an eyefinity setup of 7680 X 1600. Multiply to find the pixels and you see the 6850 resolution is 15 times the resolution of the console games. There you have the 12 times more powerful figure on ONE single mid range video card like the 6850. If you bump the video card up to a 6970 or a 580 gtx its no longer even in the same universe.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i assumed black ops takes advantage of 2 cores, which is why it would need 24 cores to run 12 instances. If devs took advantage of more cores it would help... but like SLI 2 graphics cards does not = double the performance of 1.

Hakkai007

That is not how CPU loads work.

Also the new 6900 series drivers just about double performance.

But it will sometimes depend on the game.

Look at the 6970 single and crossfire comparisons.

you need to lookup cpu bottlenecking. Where the gpu is a constant and the clock rate of the cpu is the changing factor.

but you are right in that it will depend on the game, as certain games are more cpu dependent.

That is not how CPU loads work.

Also the new 6900 series drivers just about double performance.

But it will depend on the game.

Hakkai007

you need to lookup cpu bottlenecking. Where the gpu is a constant and the clock rate of the cpu is the changing factor.

markinthedark

You are still ignoring the fact that today's cpus are not being bottlenecked as easily.

There is a lot of leg room.

Only unoptimized multiplats will even stress a cpu.

And your argument is still horrible because there is no way to test a console with it.

It *totally* depends on the game. In that same review you have Metro getting only a 10% performance gain from Crossfire, or Batman AA only getting 25%.

Good SLI/Crossfire performance is heavily dependent on how much data a game uses from previous frames, so unless the developers put in the necessary work/comprises you'll end up with small gains. I'm sure most developers decide it's not worth it, considering the relatively small percentage of multi-GPU configurations + the fact that those guys still end up with some sort of performance gain over the non-SLI case.

Teufelhuhn

Well yes it depends on how the developers optimized the game.

But it's still possible.

I only stick with single gpu setups though.

An i5 2500k clocked at 4.5ghz and a GTX 570 is enough for me.

I can't even see much of a reason for multi gpu setups right now unless you are running at ridiculous resolutions.

ok lets do the basic math. xbox 360 games run at 1024 X 800 resolution medium quality. 1 single 6850 card can do an eyefinity setup of 7680 X 1600. Multiply to find the pixels and you see the 6850 resolution is 15 times the resolution of the console games. There you have the 12 times more powerful figure on ONE single mid range video card like the 6850. If you bump the video card up to a 6970 or a 580 gtx its no longer even in the same universe.

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

you need to lookup cpu bottlenecking. Where the gpu is a constant and the clock rate of the cpu is the changing factor.

Hakkai007

You are still ignoring the fact that today's cpus are not being bottlenecked as easily.

There is a lot of leg room.

Only unoptimized multiplats will even stress a cpu.

And your argument is still horrible because there is no way to test a console with it.

you are right... in a single instance... from what ive heard as long as you are running at 3.2ghz... you wont get bottlenecked. That number increases a bit for SLI.... but ever so slightly.

i was just saying, you cant run multiple instances of a console game, because you would get bottlnecked real hard by the cpu. You can still run 60fps at insane resolutions with your 3.2ghz dual core.

but as your resolution decreases and your fps increases, you become increasingly bottlenecked by the cpu.

Well yes it depends on how the developers optimized the game.

But it's still possible.

I only stick with single gpu setups though.

An i5 2500k clocked at 4.5ghz and a GTX 570 is enough for me.

I can't even see much of a reason for multi gpu setups right now unless you are running at ridiculous resolutions.

Hakkai007

Oh and here is the 80 thread vid I watched a while back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbokPe4_-mY&feature=related

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Well yes it depends on how the developers optimized the game.

But it's still possible.

I only stick with single gpu setups though.

An i5 2500k clocked at 4.5ghz and a GTX 570 is enough for me.

I can't even see much of a reason for multi gpu setups right now unless you are running at ridiculous resolutions.

Teufelhuhn

derp derp, i bought an SLI capable rig.... back when i bought my 8800gtx for $600... thinking, oh instead of upgrading, ill just buy another 8000gtx when the price drops. Price never F'n dropped.... it bottomed out at like $500.

I will never even entertain the idea of SLI again, ive learned my lesson.

I loled when I tried Street Fighter 4 on my friend's new i7 2600k and gtx 580 PC.......it was finished in no time.

This is a video with the same CPU but a much weaker GPU (5850).

And even with the weaker setup and all on default clocks he is getting around 280 frames in fights at almost twice the resolution of consoles and probably with higher AA and settings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnqhiiLMeAs

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

Hakkai007

There is something like that but I don't think windows can handle the thread count because the presentation I saw on youtube was done in a linux OS and was 80 threads.

Also Black Ops is badly unoptimized.

IBM demoed a Nehalem-EX server with 128 threads on Windows.

My Window's task manager shows 103 processes.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

the pc could do multiple instances all it would need is huge amount of ram. Think about it this way, xbox 360/ps3 have 512mb of ram, a high spec pc has about 12 GB or more. The quality of most xbox/ps3 games are approximately 1024 X 800 at low to medium settings. A single 6850 video card can run eyefinity, which is the support of 3 monitors at the same time or a resolution of 5700 X 2500 or some crazy resolution like that and run games decently. Think about what a higher spec video card like the 580 GTX monstrosity or a 6970 could do. This is the reality.

markinthedark

No CPU and FSB would be limited, it cant process that many frames. In fact the lower resolution you run, the more of a bottleneck your cpu becomes. This is reality.

similar to GPUs, cpus have more or less run out of speed, so they just keep slapping on more and more cores. SLI exists because GPU manufacturers were having problems making faster GPUs.

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

Two socket AMD Opteron 6174 (12 cores per chip package) says hi. Current PC games can played on PCI-Express 1.0 1X. PCI-Express 2.0 16X = PCI-Express 1.0 32X

I have played current PC games on my DIY ViDock** i.e. ExpressCard 1.0 = PCI-Express 1.0 1X.

**Example, Star Craft 2, DIY ViDock (ExpressCard to PCI-Express X1 adapter), External Geforce GTX460 and Intel Core 2 Duo basedlaptop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOo7Q9NDjw

Devil May Cry 4 at 1920x1080p/max details on ViDock adapter + AMD Radeon HD 4670 + Core 2 Duo based laptop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE5NmURV5P8

Few thinks .

What matters most in games is a graphics card. 360 and PS3 have an ati x1900xt equivalent and PS3 a 7800gtx equivalent. Those are 2005 cards on PC

A decent $60-70 5570 is better than those nowdays ( heck my 3year old 8800gt is 3x times faster than those )

The performance of a graphics card is based on a lot of variables but the most important are number of shaders think of them as mini processors ( a decent nvidia gaming card nowdays have at least 96 shaders while ATI shaders work in a different way so the equivalent of 96 shaders for Ati is 400shaders like the 5570 or something similar )

In comparison the 360 has if i'm not mistaken 48unified shaders while an nvidia $120 450gts has 196shaders

Also some importance are grapics processor clock ( usua speeds are around 600-650mhz ), graphics memory speed and shaders speed

Important also are number of texure units ( the more the better )

Also memory bandwidth the bigger the better

Now those are for a graphics card alone and there are also alot more less important vaiables but those are some thinks to look for

As for the CPU now days matters the number of cores, the cache size, architecture ( for instance a quad core i5 with the same cahe size of a 4year old quadQ6600 is faster )

As for RAM as long as you have 4gb 800mhz ddr2 and better ( though nowdays the usual is DDR3 1333mhz) you dont have to worry about performance since the difference in performance is negligable

All in all a $500 build it your own PC equipped with an athlon quad core a gtx460 768mb and 4gb of ram is much faster compared to any console ( that system will play almost any multiplat game at 1080p and 60fps compared to 720p and 30fps of consoles )

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i get black ops is poorly optimized, i dont know that for a fact but i trust you.

all im saying is when you get to ridiculous standards like 24 core cpus and 3 gpus in sli... we are pretty much talking a server now, and not a PC... P standing for personal.

and yes, alot of servers are unix based.... so i could see why some crazy setup like that would be run on linux.

markinthedark

Well the thing is that games are barely settings quad core as a standard.

Which is why you won't see much of an improvement if you are using a 6 core or the new 8 core setups coming out soon.

The CPU is not exactly being stressed in most games unless it is highly unoptimized.

Most of the time it's really GPU intensive.

Which is why console multiplats that come out to PC get modded treatment.

People have so much more leg room with most multiplats that they can crank up very high resolutions with 3-6 monitor setups and also add high AA like 32X.

Heck my old 2007 PC can run Devil May Cry 4 maxed out at 16xQCSAA and it is smooth as butter still.

Well alot of the stuff, like resolution, AA and various effects are all GPU based... which is where the PC majorly benefits from having an insane gpu, or 3 of them.

but it still cant run multiple instances well due to the cpu limiter... so while it can perform some functions insanely better than a console... it doesnt have a major advantage in alot of other components... which prevents it from being comically better than consoles, like alot of folks like to think. Having a gpu 2x as powerful, doesnt mean your rig is 2x as powerful.

and frankly i find there is a limit to how much AA and resolution can honestly benefit me. And you are right about the cpu cores not being taken advantage of,,, i assumed black ops takes advantage of 2 cores, which is why it would need 24 cores to run 12 instances. If devs took advantage of more cores it would help... but like SLI 2 graphics cards does not = double the performance of 1.

On the PC, it depends on DirectX API being used.

A DirectX 10 game is likely to be GPU bias.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

That is not how CPU loads work.

Also the new 6900 series drivers just about double performance.

But it will depend on the game.

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="soulitane"] Personally I didn't say it was 12x the power (I even said that in my first post to you), I was just giving a reason why people may think that.markinthedark

12 times the fps... isnt a measure of power though... is it running 12 times the AI routines as well? 12 times the AA? if its 12 times as powerful, it should be able to do every facet 12x as well... not just one facet.

How about raster rendering?

"Better" is so subjective.

How about I throw some numbers at you.

PS3 will have 1 new Uncharted, 1 new LBP, 1 new Last Guardian, 1 new Resistance, 1 new Killzone, 1 inFamous, 1 Yakuza, among other games.

PC will be getting zero of those.

Mrmccormo

My freaking god, seriously. damage control or what?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

the pc could do multiple instances all it would need is huge amount of ram. Think about it this way, xbox 360/ps3 have 512mb of ram, a high spec pc has about 12 GB or more. The quality of most xbox/ps3 games are approximately 1024 X 800 at low to medium settings. A single 6850 video card can run eyefinity, which is the support of 3 monitors at the same time or a resolution of 5700 X 2500 or some crazy resolution like that and run games decently. Think about what a higher spec video card like the 580 GTX monstrosity or a 6970 could do. This is the reality.

fireballonfire

No CPU and FSB would be limited, it cant process that many frames. In fact the lower resolution you run, the more of a bottleneck your cpu becomes. This is reality.

similar to GPUs, cpus have more or less run out of speed, so they just keep slapping on more and more cores. SLI exists because GPU manufacturers were having problems making faster GPUs.

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

So following your logic...

You say that the three core processor in the XBOX is more powerful than an I5 dual core because it has more cores?

PPE core in Xbox 360 and PS3 is about on par with PowerPC 970 @1.6Ghz.In general per clock speed performance, IBM PowerPC 970 is roughly similar to AMD K8 Athlons.

In general per clock speed performance, PPE is not the best designed PowerPC cores.

it's worthless, coz it can't run MGS4, GOW3, NGS2, U2, KZ3 ............................................................ etc .

it's not better at all, you should say how worse it is.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

you wanna run 12 instances of black ops, you need a 24 core cpu... and they dont exist.

markinthedark

There is something like that but I don't think windows can handle the thread count because the presentation I saw on youtube was done in a linux OS and was 80 threads.

Also Black Ops is badly unoptimized.

i get black ops is poorly optimized, i dont know that for a fact but i trust you.

all im saying is when you get to ridiculous standards like 24 core cpus and 3 gpus in sli... we are pretty much talking a server now, and not a PC... P standing for personal.

and yes, alot of servers are unix based.... so i could see why some crazy setup like that would be run on linux.

X86-64 based server is still a PC i.e. IBM PC compatible microcomputer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer

because of the success of the IBM Personal Computer, the term PC came to mean more specifically a microcomputer compatible with IBM's PC products

Few thinks .

What matters most in games is a graphics card. 360 and PS3 have an ati x1900xt equivalent and PS3 a 7800gtx equivalent. Those are 2005 cards on PC

A decent $60-70 5570 is better than those nowdays ( heck my 3year old 8800gt is 3x times faster than those )

The performance of a graphics card is based on a lot of variables but the most important are number of shaders think of them as mini processors ( a decent nvidia gaming card nowdays have at least 96 shaders while ATI shaders work in a different way so the equivalent of 96 shaders for Ati is 400shaders like the 5570 or something similar )

In comparison the 360 has if i'm not mistaken 48unified shaders while an nvidia $120 450gts has 196shaders

Also some importance are grapics processor clock ( usua speeds are around 600-650mhz ), graphics memory speed and shaders speed

Important also are number of texure units ( the more the better )

Also memory bandwidth the bigger the better

Now those are for a graphics card alone and there are also alot more less important vaiables but those are some thinks to look for

As for the CPU now days matters the number of cores, the cache size, architecture ( for instance a quad core i5 with the same cahe size of a 4year old quadQ6600 is faster )

As for RAM as long as you have 4gb 800mhz ddr2 and better ( though nowdays the usual is DDR3 1333mhz) you dont have to worry about performance since the difference in performance is negligable

All in all a $500 build it your own PC equipped with an athlon quad core a gtx460 768mb and 4gb of ram is much faster compared to any console ( that system will play almost any multiplat game at 1080p and 60fps compared to 720p and 30fps of consoles )

adamosmaki

Each Geforce 8/9 CUDA core has 1 scalar MAD and 1 scalar ADD unit and they are double clocked. A 128 CUDA GPU is effectivity has 256 scalar MAD+256 scalar ADD SPU. Easily matches AMD Radeon HD equiped scalar 320/400 SPUs.

Move to new window for bigger image.

Here are three console games running on my system at once. They all have their graphical settings turned up, DX10 where available, at 720p with no AA. All three are running at playable frame rates.

Note that the CPU this system is using was rated a low cost one, being the first sub $100 quad core to hit the market at the time. The ram is cheapo no brand DDR2, and the GPU is the modern equivilent of the bang for your buck 8800GT.

If running three console games at once isn't a clear and simple indication of PCs performance advantages over consoles, I don't know what is.