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

[Skurge]

Hey, I can underclock, my 4870 to 4850 speeds, that should give you a rough idea of an 8800GTX, just tell me what you need benched.

 

[Lucky777]

This is ridiculous, how are you going to accurately bench a PS3 to a 8800GTX?

Besides, PSTriple has the Cell processor. Automatic win for the PSTre because we all know how powerful and super amazing the Cell is.

Can you watch PORN on the 8800GTX? Can you surf the Internets on the 8800GTX? Can you used to run Linux the 8800GTX? Can you get free online play on the 8800GTX? Can you play super amazing 1080p fantastic looking happy movies on the 8800GTX?

PSTriple superior.
8800GTX inferior.

You're also not taking into account CPU/Memory/Motherboard upgrades. Sure, a 8800GTX would still play most every game fine today, but a typical CPU you'd have in your computer (ie E6300/Pentium D/Athlon 64) would be running Protoype, GTA4, Spidermens, etc at 2 fps, while the PSTree would play it fine. If you were running a Pentium D/A64 and your motherboard does not support the new processors, you'll have to upgrade your motherboard too! You'd also typically maybe have about 2 or so GB of memory, and if your slots are full, well, guess what! Even more monies!

 

[EarthwormJim]

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.

What you're arguing is really only a recent trend. It's only with the sudden and massive shift of developers towards cross-platform games that PC video cards seem to be "lasting" longer.

Prior to the release of the XBOX360 and PS3, you'd be lucky to have your video card really last you more than a year.

I've had my 8800gt now for nearly 3 years and it's holding up well; 1920x1200 is really too much in newer games though.
Before my 8800gt I had owned an 1800xt, an x800xl, a 6800, a 9700pro and a Geforce 4 all within about 5 years. Roughly a new card every year before my 8800gt.

I'd say for the most part your argument is true.

 

[Skurge]

This is ridiculous, how are you going to accurately bench a PS3 to a 8800GTX?

Besides, PSTriple has the Cell processor. Automatic win for the PSTre because we all know how powerful and super amazing the Cell is.

Can you watch PORN on the 8800GTX? Can you surf the Internets on the 8800GTX? Can you used to run Linux the 8800GTX? Can you get free online play on the 8800GTX? Can you play super amazing 1080p fantastic looking happy movies on the 8800GTX?

PSTriple superior.
8800GTX inferior.

You're also not taking into account CPU/Memory/Motherboard upgrades. Sure, a 8800GTX would still play most every game fine today, but a typical CPU you'd have in your computer (ie E6300/Pentium D/Athlon 64) would be running Protoype, GTA4, Spidermens, etc at 2 fps, while the PSTree would play it fine. If you were running a Pentium D/A64 and your motherboard does not support the new processors, you'll have to upgrade your motherboard too! You'd also typically maybe have about 2 or so GB of memory, and if your slots are full, well, guess what! Even more monies!

I don't know if I should take this post seriously or as sarcasm.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

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>

The 8800 GTS (G92) in my sig performs on par with the original 8800 GTX. As I mentioned, it plays games very well for me. I really don't know what other proof you want/need. To have an accurate benchmark, you'd need a new game that was just released for the PS3/Xbox, run it at the same resolution on the console and PC, and then report the results. If you want to run out and buy copies of the same game for the PS3 and PC, I'll be happy to benchmark them.

I think you're getting the reaction you're getting because 1) you're posting in a techy forum and it is obvious to all of us that a PC is more powerful and 2) we've seen similar questions over and over and 3) the tone of your post, IMO, seems like it is setting up a PC vs. console debate. That's why I pointed out that it isn't necessary to have a debate and to get the best of everything, own one of each.

Earthworm Jim made a good point a few posts up about how graphics cards do seem to be lasting longer and longer due to cross-platform games. Like it or not, many PC games start out on the consoles and are then ported over to the PC. Therefore, even an "old" PC graphic card like an 8800 will have no problem with the game.

 

[taltamir]

1) you're posting in a techy forum and it is obvious to all of us that a PC is more powerful

you are right.

and 2) we've seen similar questions over and over

Also right

and 3) the tone of your post, IMO, seems like it is setting up a PC vs. console debate. That's why I pointed out that it isn't necessary to have a debate and to get the best of everything, own one of each.

As much as I don't want to admit it, probably also right

@Skurge & CurseTheSky
Thank you very much for the offer, I appreciate it.

As for what specific benchmar:
I am thinking something that is brand new (so I would actually test a "2010 game" on 2006 card; well, you would test it actually).
Or something with fancy graphics (eg: Crysis)
or maybe a console port, problem with the port is that they are often badly done.

Testing at 720p with reduced graphics (to match console level graphics).

What do you guys think would be most appropriate?

 

[Qbah]

- CoD : MW / MW2 at 640p
- GTA IV at 720p, no AA, with medium 25-30ish settings
- Gears of War at 720p medium
- Dirt 2 - no idea about the settings though - DX9 medium 720p?
- Borderlands - 720p, no AA and low-med details
- Mass Effect 2 - 720p medium?
- Assassin's Creed 1 / 2 - DX9, no AA, medium
- Fallout 3 - 720p, no AA, medium

Off the top of my head - those games run at 30FPS (though MW1+2 at 60 I think - the reason for 640p). And GTA IV has massive slowdowns quite often on my X360. So does Fallout 3...

EDIT: Here's some more:

- Tomb Raider: Underworld - 720p, no AA, med-high (game looks really good actually...)
- Prince of Persia - 720p, no AA, medium (the one with Elika)
- Red Faction : Guerrilla - 720p, no AA, medium

Yes, the "no AA" really shows... Very distracting on many occasions.

EDIT2: Hmm... apparently you want to test it against a PS3 Though I'd say the difference between X360 and PS3 is hardly noticeable, so the above list could still be used Well, GTA IV runs at 640p on the PS3

 

[Lucky777]

OP, I do not know how to run 3DMark, PCMark, SuperPi, etc on my PS3 to compare it to my 8800GTX, but here are some image quality results I've captured:

MW2 on PS3:

MW2 on 8800GTX:

Uncharted 2 (the best looking PS3 game):

Crysis (the best looking PC game) on 8800GTX:

That's enough joking around. Please stick to the topic seriously.

-ViRGE

 

[EarthwormJim]

OP, I do not know how to run 3DMark, PCMark, SuperPi, etc on my PS3 to compare it to my 8800GTX, but here are some image quality results I've captured:

MW2 on PS3:

MW2 on 8800GTX:

Uncharted 2 (the best looking PS3 game):

Crysis (the best looking PC game) on 8800GTX:

Why don't you have any AA in your PC screenshots? Or did you use a really bad resizing algorithm for the .jpg's?

 

[Lucky777]

Why don't you have any AA in your PC screenshots? Or did you use a really bad resizing algorithm for the .jpg's?

Games are not playable with anti-aliasing on.

 

[SOWK]

This thread peaked my interest...

Laptop:

Intel Core 2 Dual @ 2.26Ghz (Slower CPU then PS3/Xbox 360)
Nvidia 9800M GTS - (Slower then a 8800GTX)
4 Gigs of Memory


Batman AA 720P Very high = 45fps+
Bioshock 2 720P Very High = 60fps+
Fallout 3 720P Very High = 45fps+
Team Fortress 2 720P Very High = 60fps+
Mass Effect 1 - 720P Very High = 45fps+
Street Fighter 4 - 720P Very High = 60fps+

So I say it is not only able to keep up but is still faster with better graphics.

All the above games on PS3/Xbox 360 would be locked to 30fps.

Images:

4XAA

8XAAQ

LUCKY777 - Your SO CALLED PC Screen Capture: WTF is this...

 

[SOWK]

Games are not playable with anti-aliasing on.

First of all your images look like garbage. Plus if "in-game" its amazing you got the same people to do the same jump in the same position on the PS3 as the PC...

TROLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!! My pictures above are not a pixelated pile of poo like yours, please don't post if you have no idea what you are doing. AKA don't resize and run your MW2 PC at 1280X720. (Thats still higher res then the PS3 BTW for this game.)

If you think the PS3 version looks better then the PC version your full of you know what... OR you have absolutly no idea how to setup a PC!!!! your images look like your running 320X240 resolution.

If you are posting that garbage as real screen captures from the PC you are a troll.

 

[CitanUzuki]

Won't a console with the exact same hardware almost always perform better than a similarly equipped PC? No OS overhead, no other programs running, etc...

 

[Smartazz]

It's very difficult to compare the two because consoles tend to be played on televisions vs. monitors for PCs. My PC on my TV looks incredible(even with some details lowered), whereas my 360 and PS3 look terrible on my monitor and they also look terrible from up close on a TV. It's only when you back away from the screen that games start to look good on a console. Given what the consoles have in them, they do display some pretty good graphics.

 

[SOWK]

Sorry for being brash to Lucky777, but I hope he deletes his posts all together as it is 100&#37; false for any type of comparison.

 

[Smartazz]

Sorry for being brash to Lucky777, but I hope he deletes his posts all together as it is 100% false for any type of comparison.

I completely agree with you. I've played MW2 first hand on the PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 and anyone who thinks the console versions look better is either blind or full of it. Try playing MW2 on a monitor and you'll soon see how terrible the game looks on 360. 600p is absolutely horrendous.

 

[Skurge]

SFIV 720p/2xAA/HIGH
98.3FPS

DiRT2 720p/0xAA/Meduim
67.5FPS

GTA IV
Statistics
Average FPS: 60.79
Duration: 37.23 sec
CPU Usage: 68&#37;
System memory usage: 73%
Video memory usage: 41%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 720 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Shadow Quality: Low
Reflection Resolution: Medium
Water Quality: Medium
Texture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16
Night Shadows: Off
View Distance: 30
Detail Distance: 30


Far Cry 2
Average Framerate: 72.85
Max. Framerate: 106.32
Min. Framerate: 55.44

Mass Effect 2
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
3595, 60000, 58, 62, 59.917
Its locked to 60FPS anyway

 

[taltamir]

First of all your images look like garbage. Plus if "in-game" its amazing you got the same people to do the same jump in the same position on the PS3 as the PC...

Nice catch about it being the same picture at lower quality.
It is the exact same guy jumping, also the few other guys (the one sitting on the other building to the right of the circled guy, and the one falling down below the circled guy) on the screen are all the exact same.

 

[MentalIlness]

I have a 9800GTX, which is the same as a 8800GTX. What screenshot's would you like to see ? I don't have Call Of Duty MW or MW2 though.

But I do have 75 other games, including BFBC 2.

 

[crisium]

Won't a console with the exact same hardware almost always perform better than a similarly equipped PC? No OS overhead, no other programs running, etc...

Yes, but that's not the point - at all. No one is disputing that a PS3 produces better results than a PC with a 7800. The question is the 8800, because it came out the same time the PS3 launched.

I think it's no contest that the 8800GTX produces better eye candy for multi platform-games. Call of Duty 4 and 6 run at 1152x640 on console. An 8800GTX can run CoD4 at 1920x1080 with a little AA. And CoD 6 at 1080 with no AA. Therefor is produces superior IQ.

So you could have bought an 8800GTX the same day as the PS3 launched and have better graphics. But while they were priced the same at the time, also remember the PS3 has blu-ray. And you needed a capable CPU and RAM to go with the 8800.

I guess the point is that we can respond to the PC haters who say "you have to upgrade your GPU every year to keep up!" with "no, you're a moron". There's a reason I still have a 4850 - it produces superior graphics to the consoles. The only reason to have something faster than say a 5770 or GTX 260 or so is because you are a graphics whore*. So the reason many of us upgrade our GPUs constantly is because we appreciate eye candy far superior to the consoles. Otherwise we'd be sticking with what we had years ago (like me).

*Don't dispute this until a 5770 cannot run a game at 1920x1200 at Medium with acceptable fps.

 

[f4phantom2500]

It's very difficult to compare the two because consoles tend to be played on televisions vs. monitors for PCs. My PC on my TV looks incredible(even with some details lowered), whereas my 360 and PS3 look terrible on my monitor and they also look terrible from up close on a TV. It's only when you back away from the screen that games start to look good on a console. Given what the consoles have in them, they do display some pretty good graphics.

I use the same monitor and speakers for both my PC and my 360. 360 is connected via VGA, PC via DVI on a 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 and Logitech Z-5500.

 

[CitanUzuki]

Yes, but that's not the point - at all. No one is disputing that a PS3 produces better results than a PC with a 7800. The question is the 8800, because it came out the same time the PS3 launched.

I think it's no contest that the 8800GTX produces better eye candy for multi platform-games. Call of Duty 4 and 6 run at 1152x640 on console. An 8800GTX can run CoD4 at 1920x1080 with a little AA. And CoD 6 at 1080 with no AA. Therefor is produces superior IQ.

So you could have bought an 8800GTX the same day as the PS3 launched and have better graphics. But while they were priced the same at the time, also remember the PS3 has blu-ray. And you needed a capable CPU and RAM to go with the 8800.

I guess the point is that we can respond to the PC haters who say "you have to upgrade your GPU every year to keep up!" with "no, you're a moron". There's a reason I still have a 4850 - it produces superior graphics to the consoles. The only reason to have something faster than say a 5770 or GTX 260 or so is because you are a graphics whore*. So the reason many of us upgrade our GPUs constantly is because we appreciate eye candy far superior to the consoles. Otherwise we'd be sticking with what we had years ago (like me).

*Don't dispute this until a 5770 cannot run a game at 1920x1200 at Medium with acceptable fps.

I suppose my line of thinking was that if both are not equal with the same hardware, then the Ps3 would be graphically equivalent to a PC with a gpu one generation ahead of the7800(perhaps a brash assumption). You say this is not so, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I simply have not seen any sort of analysis comparing the two(and I haven't really looked).

 

[MentalIlness]

Logitech Z-5500.

I got the same set of speakers. NICE

 

[Smartazz]

I use the same monitor and speakers for both my PC and my 360. 360 is connected via VGA, PC via DVI on a 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 and Logitech Z-5500.

My setup is actually pretty close to yours. I have my PS3 and PC hooked up to my 22" LCD @1680x1050, but I use headphones. I have set of Z5500s for my 360 on my TV, but unfortunately my 360 died about a month ago. I must say that I prefer my console games on a TV and my PC games on a monitor. The only reason I use my PS3 with my monitor is that I have a wheel hooked up to my desk.

 

[Smartazz]

What you're arguing is really only a recent trend. It's only with the sudden and massive shift of developers towards cross-platform games that PC video cards seem to be "lasting" longer.

Prior to the release of the XBOX360 and PS3, you'd be lucky to have your video card really last you more than a year.

I've had my 8800gt now for nearly 3 years and it's holding up well; 1920x1200 is really too much in newer games though.
Before my 8800gt I had owned an 1800xt, an x800xl, a 6800, a 9700pro and a Geforce 4 all within about 5 years. Roughly a new card every year before my 8800gt.

I'd say for the most part your argument is true.

Don't game requirements tend to slow down as a console gets older though? With the exception being Unchartered 2, the graphics on the consoles seem to have started to stagnate.