Anyone has an 8800GTX and is willing to benchmark it vs a PS3?

[taltamir]

After an argument on whether or not PC gamers "MUST" upgrade constantly (and buying a console somehow excludes you from doing so) I decided to look up some dates.
The PS3 came out November 11, 2006 for 500 or 600$ (depending on model).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3

Looking at various cards I found it to coincide with early geforce 8 cards...
the geforce 8800gtx came out at 600$, and was later reduced to 400$.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce_8

The 8800GTX and 8800GTS (640MB of ram version) were both released on November 8, 2006.
Exactly 3 days before the PS3.

the option to upgrade is a GOOD thing I believe, but it is painted as a negative by console fanatics... so lets presume it is a negative and that you refused to upgrade and stuck out with your 8800GTX. So if as a PC gamer you do not "constantly upgrade" and have kept it thus far, how would it compare to the PS3 in 2010?

I am calling on anyone who still uses an 8800GTX to provide tests of a few 2010 games, showcasing their graphical quality, so that it may be compared to that of PS3 games.
Since console ports are likely badly ported, don't limit yourself to such games please, show off the best quality DX10 games from 2010 you can run on it.

Or maybe show the opposite, show that the 8800GTX aged badly, and that PS3 outperforms it today. I would be glad to be proven wrong here.

 

[zerocool84]

Lol this is retarded coupled with the fact that 720p @ 30fps is an insanely tiny resolution and no respectable pc gamer games at that rez. Hardly any console games even go faster than 30fps as well. I don`t see why people try to compare the two.

 

[Ika]

The PS3 uses a 7800GT-era GPU, I thought... but it's hard to compare directly to PCs, because console games are designed specifically for that hardware, and thus are optimized for the resolution and don't have to go through compatibility hoops like PC developers do. Not to mention the fact that console games generally run at lower FPS than PC gamers by virtue of the medium (TV at farther distances vs. monitors up close and personal).

 

[taltamir]

The PS3 uses a 7800GT-era GPU, I thought... but it's hard to compare directly to PCs, because console games are designed specifically for that hardware, and thus are optimized for the resolution and don't have to go through compatibility hoops like PC developers do. Not to mention the fact that console games generally run at lower FPS than PC gamers by virtue of the medium (TV at farther distances vs. monitors up close and personal).

that is the theory I am told (that extra optimization for specific hardware gives an advantage to consoles). Lets put it to the test by getting an 8800GTX and benchmarking it.

As for 7800GT era... not true... the 8800GTX and 8800GTS 640MB both were released 3 days before the PS3. The 8800GTX was MSRP of 600$ the 8800GTS 640MB was 450$, the PS3 MSRP of 500$ and 600$ (two seperate models)

 

[FragKrag]

I think what he means is that the GPU in the PS3 is based off of the 7 series chip, not the 8 series chip.

 

[AndroidVageta]

8800GTX is still to this day a very capable card either way you look at it...I believe somewhere in the realm of the more current ATi 4850 if Im not mistaken.

Console gamers do have a point though...even by your logic lets talk release prices...PS3 when first released = $600...8800GTX when first release = $600 PLUS the REST of the computer as well.

And like others have said, a console (be it 360 or PS3) is NEVER going to touch a 8800GTX in graphic quality...I mean, most console games are running at 720p or lower and are HIGHLY optimized for the system. If you could optimize a game purely for the 8800GTX it would make current consoles look like last generation trash (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube)...there really is no comparing.

 

[taltamir]

PLUS the REST of the computer as well.

Ah, but who DOESN'T own a computer?

You need a computer to do your schoolwork, work-work, browse the internet...

My 80 year old grandparents have computers, my 50 year old parents have computers (and btw, they like them FAST! my mom gets pissed if her computer isn't blazing fast and loves having me upgrade its CPU... she never plays games, but she has a good CPU and plenty of ram).

Every single one of my siblings owns a computer... etc...

The price of gaming on the PC is just adding a video card...

Granted, the PS3 was also a blu-ray player... but that is only of value for people who were going to buy a blu-ray player at release anyways... those are rare. On the other hand, which percentage of the population does not own a computer (at all) but WILL buy a PS3 for games?

And like others have said, a console (be it 360 or PS3) is NEVER going to touch a 8800GTX in graphic quality...I mean, most console games are running at 720p or lower and are HIGHLY optimized for the system. If you could optimize a game purely for the 8800GTX it would make current consoles look like last generation trash (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube)...there really is no comparing.

I would like to do the comparison anyways... someone who does not upgrade his video card... just sticks it in whatever is current email and porno machine is and uses it for 5 years. Vs someone who buys a console for the same price and uses it for 5 years. Its ok that consoles get dedicated optimizations.... fair is fair... they get such optimizations because they are consoles and they deserve to have them counted....

I, however, contend that there is little that can be done to optimize them and that it does not in any way compensate for the reduced specs.

 

[Qbah]

Go check TechPowerUp They have tons of GPUs in every test - just check for the 1280x1024 + AAx2 res and see how a HD5750 / HD4850 behaves. You'll get a rough idea how a 8800GTX would run the things.

Consoles = 1280x720 @ 30FPS for the most part. And low resolution textures. Weak draw distance too. It's not really a contest

For example this review:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_5750_iCooler_IV/7.html

Also remember that the PC scores are with maxed details (apart from AA - depends on resolution on TPU).

 

[EarthwormJim]

Go check TechPowerUp They have tons of GPUs in every test - just check for the 1280x1024 + AAx2 res and see how a HD5750 / HD4850 behaves. You'll get a rough idea how a 8800GTX would run the things.

Consoles = 1280x720 @ 30FPS for the most part. And low resolution textures. Weak draw distance too. It's not really a contest

For example this review:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_5750_iCooler_IV/7.html

Also remember that the PC scores are with maxed details (apart from AA - depends on resolution on TPU).

Consoles might even be lower resolution, depending on the game than 720p. All consoles use upscaling for nearly every game even on 720p televisions.

See here: http://www.playstatic.com/news/1023

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Ah, but who DOESN'T own a computer?

You need a computer to do your schoolwork, work-work, browse the internet...

My 80 year old grandparents have computers, my 50 year old parents have computers (and btw, they like them FAST! my mom gets pissed if her computer isn't blazing fast and loves having me upgrade its CPU... she never plays games, but she has a good CPU and plenty of ram).

Every single one of my siblings owns a computer... etc...

The price of gaming on the PC is just adding a video card...

Granted, the PS3 was also a blu-ray player... but that is only of value for people who were going to buy a blu-ray player at release anyways... those are rare. On the other hand, which percentage of the population does not own a computer (at all) but WILL buy a PS3 for games?



I would like to do the comparison anyways... someone who does not upgrade his video card... just sticks it in whatever is current email and porno machine is and uses it for 5 years. Vs someone who buys a console for the same price and uses it for 5 years. Its ok that consoles get dedicated optimizations.... fair is fair... they get such optimizations because they are consoles and they deserve to have them counted....

I, however, contend that there is little that can be done to optimize them and that it does not in any way compensate for the reduced specs.

A lousy dell + a 8800GTX does not make a gaming computer especially given the budget CPUs at the time. There's of course also the issue of needing a power supply capable of handling the card as well as a case large enough and well-ventilated enough to handle the 8800GTX, neither of which are common to such home computers. Realistically, you'd need at least $800 (more if the CPU is lousy) to upgrade and thats if you're willing to mess around with components yourself.

If its any consolation, I game on a very dismal laptop with the equivalent of a 9500GT (a third of the SPs of the 8800GTX but very fast clocks) and it still far and beyond outpaces the rather appalling graphics in the ps3 and xbox 360 as far as I can tell.

And you'd probably be wrong on the optimization. Games progressively look better on consoles from release towards the end of life. When you have so many developers looking to eke out that last bit of performance from a machine with standard hardware, I really can't see at the very least 1.5x in performance as compared to having to cater to a very wide variety of configurations.

 

[taltamir]

A lousy dell + a 8800GTX does not make a gaming computer especially given the budget CPUs at the time. There's of course also the issue of needing a power supply capable of handling the card as well as a case large enough and well-ventilated enough to handle the 8800GTX, neither of which are common to such home computers. Realistically, you'd need at least $800 (more if the CPU is lousy) to upgrade and thats if you're willing to mess around with components yourself.

then compare it to an 8800GTS 640MB, and use the 150$ price delta to account for the PSU upgrade, a little extra ram, and paying for installation.

And installing PC parts is easy as pie, some people are afraid of it, but its not like a car where you need special tools or anything. You open up the case with a screw driver, and insert part A into slot B; there are illustrated instructions and you literally can't mess it up unless you are mentally deficient.
I have taught myself how to do it as a child and it was easy as pie. My dad learned it in moments when he was 50 (52 to be precise). Its not rocket science here.

But if you insist that installation should be accounted for that you should take into account that many stores will perform free installation for parts bought in the store.

 

[crisium]

Simply by the fact that most PS3 games run at 1280x720 or less means the 8800 will look better. Even if you choose to run games at 1280x720, the 8800 has enough power left over to throw on a lot of AA.

Besides, the best looking PS3 games are PS3 exclusive and thus you cannot compare. But I have a 4850 which is only a bit faster than an 8800GTX and it looks better than my PS3 thanks to the higher res and AA. Uncharted 2, even running at 1280x720, still looks as good as any top of the line PC game though. But again, an exclusive.

 

[taltamir]

the PS3 is capable of 1920x1080 output though, which it uses for movies.

Games are lower resolution on the PS3 due to lack of computational power.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

then compare it to an 8800GTS 640MB, and use the 150$ price delta to account for the PSU upgrade, a little extra ram, and paying for installation.

And installing PC parts is easy as pie, some people are afraid of it, but its not like a car where you need special tools or anything. You open up the case with a screw driver, and insert part A into slot B; there are illustrated instructions and you literally can't mess it up unless you are mentally deficient.
I have taught myself how to do it as a child and it was easy as pie. My dad learned it in moments when he was 50 (52 to be precise). Its not rocket science here.

But if you insist, stores WILL perform free installation for parts bought in the store.

Well, you yourself suggested a 8800GTX so that's what I posit that it would cost. Dunno why you're all of a sudden being defensive about that. Certainly you can drop the GPU and still crush the PS3. I estimate a 8600GT should still be significantly more powerful.

No need to be condescending about a very minor point. The reality is that, shockingly enough, there are gamers out there who'd rather not touch their computer innards. That the console is plug and play is a boon to many. But of course from an enthusiast's point of view, it's definitely a plus how we can tinker with hardware and whatnot.

 

[taltamir]

Well, you yourself suggested a 8800GTX so that's what I posit that it would cost. Dunno why you're all of a sudden being defensive about that. Certainly you can drop the GPU and still crush the PS3. I estimate a 8600GT should still be significantly more powerful.

No need to be condescending about a very minor point. The reality is that, shockingly enough, there are gamers out there who'd rather not touch their computer innards. That the console is plug and play is a boon to many. But of course from an enthusiast's point of view, it's definitely a plus how we can tinker with hardware and whatnot.

then buy it at frys or best buy. Get free "professional" installation of the parts done for you... same plug and play as a console.

The argument I am trying to disprove is that PC gamers MUST upgrade regularly to keep on playing games. That a console affords you the "option" to "not have to" upgrade every year.

My point is that a video card released within days of said console for the same price still outperforms that console, even if you haven't upgraded it since.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

As for 7800GT era... not true... the 8800GTX and 8800GTS 640MB both were released 3 days before the PS3. The 8800GTX was MSRP of 600$ the 8800GTS 640MB was 450$, the PS3 MSRP of 500$ and 600$ (two seperate models)

No, it is true. The PS3 graphics design was based off of the 7800 GT technology. The PS3 had been in design for several years before it was released and just because nVidia released the 8800 series 3 days before the PS3 was released means nothing at all.

The 360 was based off of a Radeon 1800 or 1900, IIRC.

 

[taltamir]

No, it is true. The PS3 graphics design was based off of the 7800 GT technology. The PS3 had been in design for several years before it was released and just because nVidia released the 8800 series 3 days before the PS3 was released means nothing at all.

The 360 was based off of a Radeon 1800 or 1900, IIRC.

Oh, he meant that it has a 7800GT like GPU in it? because to me it sounded like he was saying it was from the same time period as the sale of the 7800GT.

And the fact that the 8800 was released 3 days before the PS3 means everything. How could you seriously say it means nothing? we are comparing technologies as they reach the market... the PS3 was delayed long enough for its GPU to become obsolete? well boohoo for it.
As for the 360, it was competing with the radeon 2xxx series. so it also then is based on a GPU a generation older then what it was competing with on the PC.

Anyways, it is totally and utterly irrelevant what the components are and the engineering decisions involved. All that matters is what you could go to the store and buy with your hard earned cash.
The fact is that in November 11th 2006 you could buy a PS3 for 600$ (heh, assuming you camped out for 3 days ), or you could buy an 8800GTX.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The argument I am trying to disprove is that PC gamers MUST upgrade regularly to keep on playing games. That a console affords you the "option" to "not have to" upgrade every year.

My point is that a video card released within days of said console for the same price still outperforms that console, even if you haven't upgraded it since.

I don't think you have to argue the first point to be honest. Sure, there are some games where you would likely have to upgrade a PC to the latest graphics card to play it well (Crysis 2, for example). But I will tell you, the rig in my sig hasn't had a single hardware upgrade since I built in in May of 2008 and it still plays everything well and with most settings set to the highest. That was at 1600 X 1200; I got a Dell U2410 a few weeks ago and so far, I am able to play most of the games at 1920 X 1200 with high settings as well. Granted, I haven't tested every single game I have with the new monitor (I still need to test ArmA II), but so far, I've been pleasantly surprised. I will probably ask the wife for a graphics card for Christmas -- not because I really need one at the moment, but because I think that there will probably be a few games I'll need it for by then AND I think that a new graphic card will extend the life of this PC 2 to 3 more years. I think I am done with the 3 year PC upgrade cycle, though I do enjoy building them.

I just don't get the animosity between some PC gamers and console gamers. In my opinion, if you are a TRUE gamer, you'd have a PC and a console of some variety. As you can see from my sig, I have a PC and all of the major consoles.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This won't prove anything since a bare graphics card by itself is useless.

My April 2006 gaming PC cost $1,700 not $600, and came with a 7900GTX. I built it myself so no markup for assembly. It also couldn't play blu-ray discs like my PS3 can. (My July 2008 upgrade of CPU and video only cost $700, but I reused the case, PSU, DVD drives and OS.)

I do upgrade my PC every 2-3 years, but I'm in the camp that it isn't necessary to keep playing games, you can always lower the resolution or other settings a notch or two.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Oh, he meant that it has a 7800GT like GPU in it... well, he should have said so instead of saying "from the same era".

And the fact that the 8800 was released 3 days before the PS3 means everything. How could you seriously say it means nothing?

It is a miscommunication. When you said that, I thought you were implying that a 3 day release lead would have given Sony time to include the 8800 in the PS3 or they would have gotten the 8800 chips a few weeks ahead and could have included them. Nevermind, it's all good.

we are comparing technologies as they reach the market... the PS3 was delayed long enough for its GPU to become obsolete? well boohoo for it.

The PS3 is a damn fine system, regardless. To be honest, I did want one at release but couldn't justify $600 given the limited availability of games and the fact that the Xbox (which my friends had) was $300-$400. I got sick of Xbox hardware issues and my wife got me a PS3 for Christmas. Since then, the PS3 has dominated game time over the Xbox (as has the PC).

The fact remains that in about the same time you had the PS3 and the Geforce 8800GTX / GTS released. And as a gamer you had to choose between those.

The first part is true, but you're missing the bigger picture. No one is doubting that the PC is a superior hardware platform and if they are denying that, they're crazy. What people are correctly pointing out is that the cost of a console (even the PS3) was the same cost as the graphic card alone (speaking of the 8800GTX). To use a card like that, it is somewhat likely you'd have to upgrade other components as well, such as the power supply. It is a more expensive proposition and if you don't know how to do those upgrades, you have to pay someone else to do them for you.

This also ignores the games available for the platforms. True, at launch, the selection was limited for the PS3, but now, the PS3 and Xbox both have games that the PC don't have and many people want those games.

As for the 360, it was competing with the radeon 2xxx series. so it also then is based on a GPU a generation older then what it was competing with on the PC.

That has always been true of consoles. The original Xbox, IIRC, was based on an enhanced GeForce 3 and was released just shortly before the GeForce 4 cards were available.

Anyways, it is totally and utterly irrelevant what the components are and the engineering decisions involved. All that matters is what you could go to the store and buy with your hard earned cash.
The fact is that in November 11th 2006 you could buy a PS3 for 600$ (heh, assuming you camped out for 3 days ), or you could buy an 8800GTX.

Very true.

 

[taltamir]

I don't think you have to argue the first point to be honest.

I would think it was obvious... but it isn't. So I am looking to get proof I can use to back up my claims.

Sure, there are some games where you would likely have to upgrade a PC to the latest graphics card to play it well (Crysis 2, for example).

If you are willing to lower the graphic settings enough to console like levels then crysis will run perfectly on an 8800GTX. Hence you DON'T need to upgrade...

I just don't get the animosity between some PC gamers and console gamers. In my opinion, if you are a TRUE gamer, you'd have a PC and a console of some variety.

A console is a DRM laden computer with a crippled OS and outdated graphics... so why would you have to own one to be a "true gamer"? You can be a "true gamer" with just a console, with just a PC, or with both...

I just don't get the animosity between some PC gamers and console gamers.

This thread has one purpose and one purpose alone. To produce factual evidence that I could use to defend PC gaming against otherwise ignorant people who spread FUD about it such as "you are better off using a console then a PC for games, if you buy a gaming PC you will have to upgrade it in like, less then a year, a console will work for 10 years!"

I hear those all the time and I want concrete defense against such FUD, so I could just point someone at said evidence.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If you are willing to lower the graphic settings enough to console like levels then crysis will run perfectly on an 8800GTX. Hence you DON'T need to upgrade...

That is true, but it depends on your tastes. I'm willing to do that but many have these high end PCs precisely because they expect to play games at the highest resolutions with all eye candy. I used to upgrade my graphics card about every 18 months but my last PC had the same card (6800 GT) its entire life and my current PC just might as well.

A console is a DRM laden computer with a crippled OS and outdated graphics... so why would you have to own one to be a "true gamer"? You can be a "true gamer" with just a console, with just a PC, or with both...

A "true" gamer enjoys a wide variety of games. Show me how I can play the God of War series or Madden 10 on the PC, for example. Or Mario Galaxy. Those are currently 3 of the top selling series and you can't play them on a PC. That's why I say a true gamer shouldn't limit himself to 1 platform.

This thread has one purpose and one purpose alone. To produce factual evidence that I could use to defend PC gaming against otherwise ignorant people who spread FUD about it such as "you are better off using a console then a PC for games, if you buy a gaming PC you will have to upgrade it in like, less then a year, a console will work for 10 years!"

Just point to the rig in my sig and assure them that I am perfectly happy with a 3 year old graphic card.

 

[taltamir]

This won't prove anything since a bare graphics card by itself is useless.

My April 2006 gaming PC cost $1,700 not $600, and came with a 7900GTX. I built it myself so no markup for assembly. It also couldn't play blu-ray discs like my PS3 can. (My July 2008 upgrade of CPU and video only cost $700, but I reused the case, PSU, DVD drives and OS.)

This is insane... how did you manage to burn that much money on it? did you buy a 1000$ CPU? I typically spend ~200$ on GPU and 400$ on everything else. Upgraded asynchronously.

And the only "gaming PCs" (aka, a PC that does nothing but gaming) I have seen are super ancient PCs dedicated to running DOS or win95 for running super old games.

For modern gaming people use a general purpose PC that also has a video card for gaming. For example, your current computer has a video card, yet you use it at the moment to surf the web, posting on the anandtech forum.

Anyways, you CHOSE to spend a lot of money on a PC... but had you simply bought an 8800GTX or GTS and put it in whatever computer you were using to surf the internet for porno it would have worked, and it would have outperformed the PS3 then, and it would continue to outperform it today.

A "true" gamer enjoys a wide variety of games. Show me how I can play the God of War series or Madden 10 on the PC, for example. Or Mario Galaxy. Those are currently 3 of the top selling series and you can't play them on a PC. That's why I say a true gamer shouldn't limit himself to 1 platform.

A "true" gamer is by definition an insult to a whole bunch of people so I don't use the term.

I do indeed like a few console exclusives... and I do without. Loan out a console for a weekend, or wait for an emulator. Mostly do without. Just as I do without the worst DRM offenders on the PC. Console only game is simply a more extreme form of DRM (and just as stupidly ineffective considering how easy they are to mod)

 

[taltamir]

Ok enough is enough. I started this thread so I can have evidence against FUD... instead person after person came here and told me that "it is completely obvious" that the FUD is false (it is obvious to you and me, but people keep on spreading it and we need to show PROOF that the FUD is false). That was followed with <insert console vs PC debate>

We do not need a console Vs PC debate people. I got dragged into one and I shouldn't have. I am serious here, I am really trying to get literal proof (pictures, benchmarks, etc) that a video card does not HAVE to be upgraded every year, that it CAN last you half a decade or more (as long as you accept console level graphics).

 

[CurseTheSky]

I have an 8800 GTX sitting next to me, dead. I revived it once via the oven method (it died again after about a week) so I have no problem giving it another shot. At the least, it should last long enough to run a quick benchmark.

I also have a slightly aged system (see SFF in sig) which I can downclock to 2.4GHz to roughly match the processor I used to have to go with the 8800 GTX (Core 2 Duo E6600). It won't be perfect, but it should be pretty close.

What benchmark do you want me to run?