Console are optimized better and not as expensive, just stop bashing console boys.X360PS3AMD05

System Wars is no fun if someone isn't getting bashed.

Glad i have a 1000watt psu otherwise that mother would kill, glad i have liquid cooling and 6 fans otherwise crossfire with those would burn my house down hahaha.Zenkuso

Glad i have a 1000watt psu otherwise that mother would kill, glad i have liquid cooling and 6 fans otherwise crossfire with those would burn my house down hahaha.Zenkuso

isn't rumored to use 250w by its self, thats crazy 

Consoles dont get laughed at by anything .   Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well.  Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

[QUOTE="Zenkuso"]Glad i have a 1000watt psu otherwise that mother would kill, glad i have liquid cooling and 6 fans otherwise crossfire with those would burn my house down hahaha.Dreams-Visions

When i was in australia yeah it did.

Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme X6800, 4x250GB HDD, 1DVD Drive, 4GB DDR2 800, ASUS Striker Extreme NVIDIA nForce 680i SLi, Geforce 8800 GTS 640MB SLi'd, Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite Pro (I do sound editing and listen to music alot), Kandalf VD4000SWA Case, 1000watt psu. All with a gigabyte liquid cooling unit and 6 90x90x25mm fans.

In australia it couldn't keep itself below 60c, since i'm in new zealand now it stays around 45c because to the temp difference.

The fans are just to keep the air flow going constantly across the boards so they don't heat up to much and to make sure if the liquid cooling runs out of water if i'm asleep/away that it has a fall back. I added another fan on top because the air flow seemed to work better with two bringing in from the top and 3 front and out the 1 back and 2 side fans. The water cooling is just cause i up the clock on the cpu and duel cores and quad cores when they are overclock can burnout really fast if they ain't keep at stable temps.

Wow sorry i just realised it actually had 8 fans... 

Consoles dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

LOL. You're delusional.

How about you come back when the PS3 has a single top-end title that is visually better than top-end PC titles?

Oh wait, that's pretty much gauranteed to not be happening now that the R600-series is on the way. Hell, I think this was set in stone with the launch of the G80-series, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're gonna try and sit here to tell me the PS3 can keep up for the next few years in any degree when it can't keep up in the first year of its life? Even Oblivion which came much later for the PS3 isn't on par with the PC version of the game. I really don't know how much more proof you need, but you might want to check yourself into an insane asylum if that isn't enough.

You're not mistaken on only that point. The Cell is mediocre compared to modern dual-core desktop processors. Even in pure vector calculations a low-end Core 2 Duo processor will likely give The Cell a run for its money.

The problem isn't that the Cell isn't powerful enough to keep up (and I mean JUST with current-generation processors - ie the Core 2 Duo lines), it's that it isn't practical enough. First and foremost, The Cell is an in-order processor. Making it abysmally inefficient compared to your average mid-range desktop processor.

To add to this, the Cell is specialized in vector math. What does that mean? It means it's damned near useless in anything other than things like physics or (software) rendering. Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't for the first. It's likely we'll see some slightly more detailed physics on the PS3 than on the 360. What's useless is the improved efficiency of software rendering. It simply isn't needed. It's STILL vastly inferior, and much much slower than the RSX's hardware rendering (or any other recent specilized graphics processor for that matter.) There isn't much motivation to even try and take advantage of it.

Get back to us once you awaken from your dream.

Comparing Liar with Crysis? rofl, Lair is abit like a flight simulator in its usage, you can set Crysis to not have a "Vision limit" but flying around on the dragon will, there is no realy physics running in the games world, and the limit men you set on fire or hack n slash take very little power to run, have very little "Modern" intelligence.

 Seriously .... Lai more graphically/CPU involving? its not, by a long shot, its a basic flight open space game.

btw what was that debate about the 360 being better? (Thats only Triple-Core). 

Every time I see a big, long, graphics card... I think of 3DFX.

They used to make cards that just fit in my 586.

P.S.

Anyone remember when Mother boards had daughter boards?

Nasty things...

Every time I see a big, long, graphics card... I think of 3DFX.

They used to make cards that just fit in my 586.

P.S.

Anyone remember when Mother boards had daughter boards?

Nasty things...

Truth_Hurts_U

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="NuclearDruid"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

An absolutely stunning analogy at that! Well done!

the pc outpeforms it raw power wise in the GPU and Ram department there is no duel core CPU that is even remotley in the same league as the PS3 right now when it comes to gaming applications.

Welp, when we see the PS3 able to run games at 2056x1536, you let me know.  When we see something that looks like Crysis on a console, be sure to tell me.  PM me. 

In 2010. :|

Consoles are barely making it to 720p.  Only a handfull this entire generation are scheduled to be 1080p (half the resolution Crysis will run at on a DX10 card at full 60fps+) this ENTIRE console generation.

First off Console games are desgined to be played on TV's so why in the hell would they make a game support a res of 2056x1536 when no TV even supports it? Consoles are barely making it to 720p?  Um every game this gen has ran in 720p Ninja Gaiden Sigma(  A great looking game by any standards) runs in 1080p and 60fps, another game Lair which is on a  much larger scale and has more objects on screen at a time then Crysis runs at 1080p .  So please tell me your point? I simply said the processor in the PS3 is more powerful then anything currenlty available in pc's if programed for correctly and it is and we all know higher resolutions has very little to do with processing power thats more GPU and Ram intensive which ive clearly stated the PC already has an advantage in.

Sadly the PS3's Cell isnt up to the high standards as you perceive. I'm not gonna argue specs and techs with you coz I knwo your wrong and deep down Im sure you do.

But anyway for me consoles havent ever been about power and graphics hunger. Yes its nice to have a few more textures but consoels have always been about pushing new areas etc. I mean games like Resident Evil, Mario, FF, Halo, Ico, Rez, Goldeneye etc etc... Prove that consoles can make great games. graphics are 1 thing and what disappoints me more than anything is that Sony and its fanboys have lost sight of this. And could be the reason the PS3 fails big time.

Lets hope it gets back to its roots...

We know what happened to overambitious people:P
Oemenia

You live in Europe?

Only reason I ask is because... I wanna know if Packard Bell still makes computers out there?

God, this thread brings back old memories.

***Flash back***

amazing card!

nvidia better come up with something fast!

maybe the 8900's will do so of the same things.

[QUOTE="Oemenia"]We know what happened to overambitious people:P
Truth_Hurts_U

You live in Europe?

Only reason I ask is because... I wanna know if Packard Bell still makes computers out there?

God, this thread brings back old memories.

***Flash back***

www.packardbell.co.uk

still live and kicking.

/doesn't care

 gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

 halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

/doesn't care

 gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

 halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Shadow_Elite192

[QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Hewkii

It won't be as good as on xbox.

 Anyway.....Halo 3 > halo 2

so ahem. 

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]
[QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Shadow_Elite192

It won't be as good as on xbox.

Anyway.....Halo 3 > halo 2

so ahem.

It's not out yet.

Oh, I see, Halo must have been your first-ever shooter! :lol: 

[QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"][QUOTE="Hewkii"]
[QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

dgsag

It won't be as good as on xbox.

Anyway.....Halo 3 > halo 2

so ahem.

It's not out yet.

Oh, I see, Halo must have been your first-ever shooter! :lol:

 damn right it was.

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Shadow_Elite192

rofl, Halo flopped on the PC despite being a good port, nobody wanted it, but we will see which is better next month when WINDOWSGAMINGLIVE + Halo 2 go up against you. 

[QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Meu2k7

rofl, Halo flopped on the PC despite being a good port, nobody wanted it, but we will see which is better next month when WINDOWSGAMINGLIVE + Halo 2 go up against you.

 because halo is meant to played on Xbox...ill vs you and post results on here 15 (me)- 0 (you)

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Shadow_Elite192

rofl, Halo flopped on the PC despite being a good port, nobody wanted it, but we will see which is better next month when WINDOWSGAMINGLIVE + Halo 2 go up against you.

because halo is meant to played on Xbox...ill vs you and post results on here 15 (me)- 0 (you)

Before you guys get all excited, let me point out that Halo 2 doesn't have cross-platform multiplayer. Shadowrun will be the first one to do so.

[QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

dgsag

rofl, Halo flopped on the PC despite being a good port, nobody wanted it, but we will see which is better next month when WINDOWSGAMINGLIVE + Halo 2 go up against you.

because halo is meant to played on Xbox...ill vs you and post results on here 15 (me)- 0 (you)

Before you guys get all excited, let me point out that Halo 2 doesn't have cross-platform multiplayer. Shadowrun will be the first one to do so.

 Shadowrun sucks, so that guy just has time to practice. :D

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

dgsag

rofl, Halo flopped on the PC despite being a good port, nobody wanted it, but we will see which is better next month when WINDOWSGAMINGLIVE + Halo 2 go up against you.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Shadow_Elite192"]

/doesn't care

gameplay > graphics

all i play is halo 2 so...

halo 2 > that pos + pc gaming.

Shadow_Elite192

rofl, Halo flopped on the PC despite being a good port, nobody wanted it, but we will see which is better next month when WINDOWSGAMINGLIVE + Halo 2 go up against you.

because halo is meant to played on Xbox...ill vs you and post results on here 15 (me)- 0 (you)

Before you guys get all excited, let me point out that Halo 2 doesn't have cross-platform multiplayer. Shadowrun will be the first one to do so.

 Wait? Didnt the press release state that Windows Gaming LIVE, launches WITH Halo 2 (same day, interaction?) or will it be the first to use the achievments pc/pc only?

Oh well Halo 2 > PC gaming? was worth the laugh xD

[QUOTE="chansaet"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

While DVI is fine and all, I don't like using converters, at all. And they currently have video cards on the market that use HDMI. Where have you been?

 I would hardly call $150 cards HDMI worthy

where are the cooling fans?rdo

 I think the picture was takin with it off

I see dual DVI on that card. HDMI coming or what?TekkenMaster606

Yes...even VERY old nvidea and ATI cards have HDMI on them.... 

My guess is for the average person to get that card, they are most likly gonna have to upgrade there power supply as well, so I am gonna say prolly $600.00 for the card and prolly a $80 - $150 power supply.  Gonna be a expensive card....

[QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="NuclearDruid"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="TrailorParkBoy"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoels dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. mightyboosh13

just for arguments' sake:

1.) are you supposing console games cost LESS than PC games?

2.) are you suggesting Cell + RSX is superior to (pick a dual-core cpu) + one of these for gaming visuals?

No but pc hardware cost signifcantly more espeically anything with this card in it .

2. A engine built aroudn the Cell+RSX would run it better thn any duel core CPU or any of these GPU's yes.  Now if you built it with a standard pc architecture in mind of course it would run it better then the PS3. Depends what its developed for regardless what effect does this have on console onwners what so ever.

O noes i been teh owned lmao.

I'll just leave you this tid-bit to think on:

A Honda Civic is like a console.  It uses its power and fuel efficiently and maximizes it's potential.

PC's with these kinds of cards in them are like Ferrari's.  Stupid power, poor effeciency.

Sure, the Civic is more efficient, but would you suppose to race it against an Enzo?

Sure the Cell + RSX + the system built specifically around it will mean maximum benefit out of what it has available to use.  But a PC with this kind of DX10 card...a card that can run Crysis at 24x FSAA + 2056 x 1584 (or whatever that stupid resolution is) at 60fps with ease is a whole different context to talk about "power" in.

The raw, inefficiently-organized power of a dual-core PC armed with something like this eclipses a console working at max potential without batting an eye.  simple truth.

best analogy I could quickly think of, but it makes the point.

An absolutely stunning analogy at that! Well done!

the pc outpeforms it raw power wise in the GPU and Ram department there is no duel core CPU that is even remotley in the same league as the PS3 right now when it comes to gaming applications.

Welp, when we see the PS3 able to run games at 2056x1536, you let me know.  When we see something that looks like Crysis on a console, be sure to tell me.  PM me. 

In 2010. :|

Consoles are barely making it to 720p.  Only a handfull this entire generation are scheduled to be 1080p (half the resolution Crysis will run at on a DX10 card at full 60fps+) this ENTIRE console generation.

First off Console games are desgined to be played on TV's so why in the hell would they make a game support a res of 2056x1536 when no TV even supports it? Consoles are barely making it to 720p?  Um every game this gen has ran in 720p Ninja Gaiden Sigma(  A great looking game by any standards) runs in 1080p and 60fps, another game Lair which is on a  much larger scale and has more objects on screen at a time then Crysis runs at 1080p .  So please tell me your point? I simply said the processor in the PS3 is more powerful then anything currenlty available in pc's if programed for correctly and it is and we all know higher resolutions has very little to do with processing power thats more GPU and Ram intensive which ive clearly stated the PC already has an advantage in.

Sadly the PS3's Cell isnt up to the high standards as you perceive. I'm not gonna argue specs and techs with you coz I knwo your wrong and deep down Im sure you do.

But anyway for me consoles havent ever been about power and graphics hunger. Yes its nice to have a few more textures but consoels have always been about pushing new areas etc. I mean games like Resident Evil, Mario, FF, Halo, Ico, Rez, Goldeneye etc etc... Prove that consoles can make great games. graphics are 1 thing and what disappoints me more than anything is that Sony and its fanboys have lost sight of this. And could be the reason the PS3 fails big time.

Lets hope it gets back to its roots...

You would have a point if I was a fanboy point is im not and you cant get into tech specs with me because you simply no nothing about the subject.  Yes the PS3 Cell is up to extremley high standards in certain areas such as calculations and floating point performance it can also stream data extremly fast now if you desgin a game and allow that to be a benefit you can come up with some truly impressive visuals.  And yes thats just one benefit you will still get the same amazing games just like last gen.

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoles dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Velocitas8

LOL. You're delusional.

How about you come back when the PS3 has a single top-end title that is visually better than top-end PC titles?

Oh wait, that's pretty much gauranteed to not be happening now that the R600-series is on the way. Hell, I think this was set in stone with the launch of the G80-series, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're gonna try and sit here to tell me the PS3 can keep up for the next few years in any degree when it can't keep up in the first year of its life? Even Oblivion which came much later for the PS3 isn't on par with the PC version of the game. I really don't know how much more proof you need, but you might want to check yourself into an insane asylum if that isn't enough.

You're not mistaken on only that point. The Cell is mediocre compared to modern dual-core desktop processors. Even in pure vector calculations a low-end Core 2 Duo processor will likely give The Cell a run for its money.

The problem isn't that the Cell isn't powerful enough to keep up (and I mean JUST with current-generation processors - ie the Core 2 Duo lines), it's that it isn't practical enough. First and foremost, The Cell is an in-order processor. Making it abysmally inefficient compared to your average mid-range desktop processor.

To add to this, the Cell is specialized in vector math. What does that mean? It means it's damned near useless in anything other than things like physics or (software) rendering. Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't for the first. It's likely we'll see some slightly more detailed physics on the PS3 than on the 360. What's useless is the improved efficiency of software rendering. It simply isn't needed. It's STILL vastly inferior, and much much slower than the RSX's hardware rendering (or any other recent specilized graphics processor for that matter.) There isn't much motivation to even try and take advantage of it.

Get back to us once you awaken from your dream.

Why do you even bother speaking when you are mildly retarded on the subject.  First of all get to you when consoles beat top end pc games? Um right now consoles are obliterating top of the line pc games.  Gears of War won best visuals in the Overall awards last time I checked and yes that was against any pc game last year.  Motorstorm simply stomps the crap out of about 99% of the pc games out from a visual standpoint and you say im delustional?  Consoles cant keep up  yet right now they clearly look better when it comes to exclusives?

Now Oblivon what another broken argument this is as I have said time and time again the PS3 verison of Oblivon looks identical to a pc running it on max settings withought mods that is a fact even IGN said it in there previews and your talking to someone who has the pc version of Oblivon so please stop your pointless babble untill you play both versiosn of the game.

Now your gonna dis on the Cell?  Hmm first all you dont even know nothing about in order processors other then the crap you read on the internet son.  Out of order proessceors are easier to program for yes and inorder processor also alow much more customization and are far superior for graphic rendering purposes( you know the thing that is important for games)?  The Cell as a processor sucks at general purpose power good thing im not running multiple software applications on my pc im playing games and as far as physic calculations , floationg point performance and Visual rendering the Cell utterly emberraces any processor currently avaible on the pc right now to even compare it to a pathetic low end duel core shows what af fool you are go do me a favor and get a degree in computer science like me and stop reading fanboy blogs that trash talk new architectures they know nothing about.  

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoles dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

LOL. You're delusional.

How about you come back when the PS3 has a single top-end title that is visually better than top-end PC titles?

Oh wait, that's pretty much gauranteed to not be happening now that the R600-series is on the way. Hell, I think this was set in stone with the launch of the G80-series, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're gonna try and sit here to tell me the PS3 can keep up for the next few years in any degree when it can't keep up in the first year of its life? Even Oblivion which came much later for the PS3 isn't on par with the PC version of the game. I really don't know how much more proof you need, but you might want to check yourself into an insane asylum if that isn't enough.

You're not mistaken on only that point. The Cell is mediocre compared to modern dual-core desktop processors. Even in pure vector calculations a low-end Core 2 Duo processor will likely give The Cell a run for its money.

The problem isn't that the Cell isn't powerful enough to keep up (and I mean JUST with current-generation processors - ie the Core 2 Duo lines), it's that it isn't practical enough. First and foremost, The Cell is an in-order processor. Making it abysmally inefficient compared to your average mid-range desktop processor.

To add to this, the Cell is specialized in vector math. What does that mean? It means it's damned near useless in anything other than things like physics or (software) rendering. Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't for the first. It's likely we'll see some slightly more detailed physics on the PS3 than on the 360. What's useless is the improved efficiency of software rendering. It simply isn't needed. It's STILL vastly inferior, and much much slower than the RSX's hardware rendering (or any other recent specilized graphics processor for that matter.) There isn't much motivation to even try and take advantage of it.

Get back to us once you awaken from your dream.

Why do you even bother speaking when you are mildly retarded on the subject. First of all get to you when consoles beat top end pc games? Um right now consoles are obliterating top of the line pc games. Gears of War won best visuals in the Overall awards last time I checked and yes that was against any pc game last year. Motorstorm simply stomps the crap out of about 99% of the pc games out from a visual standpoint and you say im delustional? Consoles cant keep up yet right now they clearly look better when it comes to exclusives?

Now Oblivon what another broken argument this is as I have said time and time again the PS3 verison of Oblivon looks identical to a pc running it on max settings withought mods that is a fact even IGN said it in there previews and your talking to someoen who has the pc version of Oblivon so please stop your pointless babble untill you play the games.

Now your gonna dis on the Cell? Hmm first all you dont even know nothing about in order processors other then the crap you read on the internet son. Out of order proessceors are easier to program for yes and inorder processor also alow much more customization and are far superior for graphic rendering purposes( you know the thing that is important for games)? The Cell as a processor sucks at general purpose power good thing im not running multiple software applications on my pc im playing games and as far as physic calculations , floationg point performance and Visual rendering the Cell utterly emberraces any processor currently avaible on the pc right now to even compare it to a pathetic low end duel core shows what af fool you are go do me a favor and get a degree in computer science like me and stop reading fanboy blogs that trash talk new architectures they know nothing about.

TeH CELL!!!! 

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoles dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

LOL. You're delusional.

How about you come back when the PS3 has a single top-end title that is visually better than top-end PC titles?

Oh wait, that's pretty much gauranteed to not be happening now that the R600-series is on the way. Hell, I think this was set in stone with the launch of the G80-series, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're gonna try and sit here to tell me the PS3 can keep up for the next few years in any degree when it can't keep up in the first year of its life? Even Oblivion which came much later for the PS3 isn't on par with the PC version of the game. I really don't know how much more proof you need, but you might want to check yourself into an insane asylum if that isn't enough.

You're not mistaken on only that point. The Cell is mediocre compared to modern dual-core desktop processors. Even in pure vector calculations a low-end Core 2 Duo processor will likely give The Cell a run for its money.

The problem isn't that the Cell isn't powerful enough to keep up (and I mean JUST with current-generation processors - ie the Core 2 Duo lines), it's that it isn't practical enough. First and foremost, The Cell is an in-order processor. Making it abysmally inefficient compared to your average mid-range desktop processor.

To add to this, the Cell is specialized in vector math. What does that mean? It means it's damned near useless in anything other than things like physics or (software) rendering. Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't for the first. It's likely we'll see some slightly more detailed physics on the PS3 than on the 360. What's useless is the improved efficiency of software rendering. It simply isn't needed. It's STILL vastly inferior, and much much slower than the RSX's hardware rendering (or any other recent specilized graphics processor for that matter.) There isn't much motivation to even try and take advantage of it.

Get back to us once you awaken from your dream.

Why do you even bother speaking when you are mildly retarded on the subject. First of all get to you when consoles beat top end pc games? Um right now consoles are obliterating top of the line pc games. Gears of War won best visuals in the Overall awards last time I checked and yes that was against any pc game last year. Motorstorm simply stomps the crap out of about 99% of the pc games out from a visual standpoint and you say im delustional? Consoles cant keep up yet right now they clearly look better when it comes to exclusives?

Now Oblivon what another broken argument this is as I have said time and time again the PS3 verison of Oblivon looks identical to a pc running it on max settings withought mods that is a fact even IGN said it in there previews and your talking to someone who has the pc version of Oblivon so please stop your pointless babble untill you play both versiosn of the game.

Now your gonna dis on the Cell? Hmm first all you dont even know nothing about in order processors other then the crap you read on the internet son. Out of order proessceors are easier to program for yes and inorder processor also alow much more customization and are far superior for graphic rendering purposes( you know the thing that is important for games)? The Cell as a processor sucks at general purpose power good thing im not running multiple software applications on my pc im playing games and as far as physic calculations , floationg point performance and Visual rendering the Cell utterly emberraces any processor currently avaible on the pc right now to even compare it to a pathetic low end duel core shows what af fool you are go do me a favor and get a degree in computer science like me and stop reading fanboy blogs that trash talk new architectures they know nothing about.

[QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoles dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. luigigreen

LOL. You're delusional.

How about you come back when the PS3 has a single top-end title that is visually better than top-end PC titles?

Oh wait, that's pretty much gauranteed to not be happening now that the R600-series is on the way. Hell, I think this was set in stone with the launch of the G80-series, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're gonna try and sit here to tell me the PS3 can keep up for the next few years in any degree when it can't keep up in the first year of its life? Even Oblivion which came much later for the PS3 isn't on par with the PC version of the game. I really don't know how much more proof you need, but you might want to check yourself into an insane asylum if that isn't enough.

You're not mistaken on only that point. The Cell is mediocre compared to modern dual-core desktop processors. Even in pure vector calculations a low-end Core 2 Duo processor will likely give The Cell a run for its money.

The problem isn't that the Cell isn't powerful enough to keep up (and I mean JUST with current-generation processors - ie the Core 2 Duo lines), it's that it isn't practical enough. First and foremost, The Cell is an in-order processor. Making it abysmally inefficient compared to your average mid-range desktop processor.

To add to this, the Cell is specialized in vector math. What does that mean? It means it's damned near useless in anything other than things like physics or (software) rendering. Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't for the first. It's likely we'll see some slightly more detailed physics on the PS3 than on the 360. What's useless is the improved efficiency of software rendering. It simply isn't needed. It's STILL vastly inferior, and much much slower than the RSX's hardware rendering (or any other recent specilized graphics processor for that matter.) There isn't much motivation to even try and take advantage of it.

Get back to us once you awaken from your dream.

Why do you even bother speaking when you are mildly retarded on the subject. First of all get to you when consoles beat top end pc games? Um right now consoles are obliterating top of the line pc games. Gears of War won best visuals in the Overall awards last time I checked and yes that was against any pc game last year. Motorstorm simply stomps the crap out of about 99% of the pc games out from a visual standpoint and you say im delustional? Consoles cant keep up yet right now they clearly look better when it comes to exclusives?

Now Oblivon what another broken argument this is as I have said time and time again the PS3 verison of Oblivon looks identical to a pc running it on max settings withought mods that is a fact even IGN said it in there previews and your talking to someone who has the pc version of Oblivon so please stop your pointless babble untill you play both versiosn of the game.

Now your gonna dis on the Cell? Hmm first all you dont even know nothing about in order processors other then the crap you read on the internet son. Out of order proessceors are easier to program for yes and inorder processor also alow much more customization and are far superior for graphic rendering purposes( you know the thing that is important for games)? The Cell as a processor sucks at general purpose power good thing im not running multiple software applications on my pc im playing games and as far as physic calculations , floationg point performance and Visual rendering the Cell utterly emberraces any processor currently avaible on the pc right now to even compare it to a pathetic low end duel core shows what af fool you are go do me a favor and get a degree in computer science like me and stop reading fanboy blogs that trash talk new architectures they know nothing about.

Crysis isnt out yet what does that have to do with anything? It also has more talent and a budget behind it that is far beyond most games in dev .  Hermits act like Crysis is the standard pc game its not its the top of the line pc game and it utterly destroys anything currenlty out are even annoucned for pc .

[QUOTE="luigigreen"][QUOTE="Vadrick"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]Consoles dont get laughed at by anything . Im getting great games for half the price and the PS3 processor utterly stomps what the pc is doing now and yes it has the ability to render visuals as well. Go ahed and quote larger stats though nobodoy cares. Vadrick

LOL. You're delusional.

How about you come back when the PS3 has a single top-end title that is visually better than top-end PC titles?

Oh wait, that's pretty much gauranteed to not be happening now that the R600-series is on the way. Hell, I think this was set in stone with the launch of the G80-series, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're gonna try and sit here to tell me the PS3 can keep up for the next few years in any degree when it can't keep up in the first year of its life? Even Oblivion which came much later for the PS3 isn't on par with the PC version of the game. I really don't know how much more proof you need, but you might want to check yourself into an insane asylum if that isn't enough.

You're not mistaken on only that point. The Cell is mediocre compared to modern dual-core desktop processors. Even in pure vector calculations a low-end Core 2 Duo processor will likely give The Cell a run for its money.

The problem isn't that the Cell isn't powerful enough to keep up (and I mean JUST with current-generation processors - ie the Core 2 Duo lines), it's that it isn't practical enough. First and foremost, The Cell is an in-order processor. Making it abysmally inefficient compared to your average mid-range desktop processor.

To add to this, the Cell is specialized in vector math. What does that mean? It means it's damned near useless in anything other than things like physics or (software) rendering. Why is that a bad thing? Well, it isn't for the first. It's likely we'll see some slightly more detailed physics on the PS3 than on the 360. What's useless is the improved efficiency of software rendering. It simply isn't needed. It's STILL vastly inferior, and much much slower than the RSX's hardware rendering (or any other recent specilized graphics processor for that matter.) There isn't much motivation to even try and take advantage of it.

Get back to us once you awaken from your dream.

Why do you even bother speaking when you are mildly retarded on the subject. First of all get to you when consoles beat top end pc games? Um right now consoles are obliterating top of the line pc games. Gears of War won best visuals in the Overall awards last time I checked and yes that was against any pc game last year. Motorstorm simply stomps the crap out of about 99% of the pc games out from a visual standpoint and you say im delustional? Consoles cant keep up yet right now they clearly look better when it comes to exclusives?

Now Oblivon what another broken argument this is as I have said time and time again the PS3 verison of Oblivon looks identical to a pc running it on max settings withought mods that is a fact even IGN said it in there previews and your talking to someone who has the pc version of Oblivon so please stop your pointless babble untill you play both versiosn of the game.

Now your gonna dis on the Cell? Hmm first all you dont even know nothing about in order processors other then the crap you read on the internet son. Out of order proessceors are easier to program for yes and inorder processor also alow much more customization and are far superior for graphic rendering purposes( you know the thing that is important for games)? The Cell as a processor sucks at general purpose power good thing im not running multiple software applications on my pc im playing games and as far as physic calculations , floationg point performance and Visual rendering the Cell utterly emberraces any processor currently avaible on the pc right now to even compare it to a pathetic low end duel core shows what af fool you are go do me a favor and get a degree in computer science like me and stop reading fanboy blogs that trash talk new architectures they know nothing about.

Crysis isnt out yet what does that have to do with anything? It also has more talent and a budget behind it that is far beyond most games in dev . Hermits act like Crysis is the standard pc game its not its the top of the line pc game and it utterly destroys anything currenlty out are even annoucned for pc .

 Hermits act like Crysis is the standard pc game its not its the top of the line pc game.

Vadrick

Hermits act like Crysis is the standard pc game its not its the top of the line pc game and it utterly destroys anything currenlty out are even annoucned for pc . Vadrick

This is true, I have to admit.  Crysis is state-of-the-art, not the present or near-future standard.  Having said that it still looks unbelievable but yeah I get that all the time as well.

[QUOTE="Vadrick"]

 Hermits act like Crysis is the standard pc game its not its the top of the line pc game.

Hewkii

It is at the present time.  In the future(i.e. Crysis) there will be console games that look better than Gears.

Why do you even bother speaking when you are mildly retarded on the subject. First of all get to you when consoles beat top end pc games? Um right now consoles are obliterating top of the line pc games. Gears of War won best visuals in the Overall awards last time I checked and yes that was against any pc game last year. Motorstorm simply stomps the crap out of about 99% of the pc games out from a visual standpoint and you say im delustional? Consoles cant keep up yet right now they clearly look better when it comes to exclusives?

Now Oblivon what another broken argument this is as I have said time and time again the PS3 verison of Oblivon looks identical to a pc running it on max settings withought mods that is a fact even IGN said it in there previews and your talking to someone who has the pc version of Oblivon so please stop your pointless babble untill you play both versiosn of the game

Vadrick

Next: Oblivion.

a) IGN *pre*views do not matter here much. Show me the screenshots please and I'll do the comparison myself.

b) The Cell itself has next to nothing to do with rendering. CPUs generally don't have much to do with visuals, because diverting loads from the GPU which are built specifically with visual processing in mind is incredibly inefficient.

c) Mods. Yes, mods. PS3 and the 360 both don't even have enough texture memory to support the high resolution texture packs. Because those textures take 512 MBs. The 360 and the PS3 have a TOTAL of 512 MB of memory for everything.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Vadrick"]

 Hermits act like Crysis is the standard pc game its not its the top of the line pc game.

Spartan070

It is at the present time.  In the future(i.e. Crysis) there will be console games that look better than Gears.