Ok this is how I feel after I got a 360 I like it but I realy miss playing Games like EQ, AQ,EQII,and WOW. My IMac can play WOW but not nearly as good as my 2 year old PC I gave to my Daughter. I could play any of those games for years and spend now were near as much on buying a games for the console for $40-$60 for each that I beat real soon and have no wear as near as much fun playing. The Wii may be fun though from what I saw and isnt to expensive. You can also install Linux to a PS3 I heard so that is a plus for them. But If you only like playing Racing games and and FPS games wich you cant control as good as you can on a PC then a Console will be good for you over a PC as far as gaming goes.
Farmer
Diamond Member
- Dec 23, 2003
- 3,334
- 2
- 81
First off, you are addressing the wrong issue. No one claimed that PS3 graphics suck, per se, just that it costs a whole helluva lot more than X360, which has on-par graphics.
Yeah, its the cost that's the issue. And since its still $600, no screenshot will make me go buy one because I just don't have $600 lying around that I wouldn't rather spend on something else.
Yeah, its the cost that's the issue. And since its still $600, no screenshot will make me go buy one because I just don't have $600 lying around that I wouldn't rather spend on something else.
I agree that $600 is nuts for a console.
Actually, all of the consoles are overpriced this round.
PS3's saving grace will be exclusive games like Gran Turismo. That said, IMO the Xbox 360 is the most powerful system hardware wise, it's easier to program for, and it's cheaper. It will be the king of this generation if I had to predict.
A 7800 series GPU on the PC could not render that. I imagine you're gonna need a way more powerful computer because PS3 games are coded for PS3 so it is efficient. Games on the PC have to be scaled to work on low end and high end computers. That and it won't be as efficient.
You are off here, The 8800 sereis could reader that and the 78xx/79xx series too IF AND ONLY IF the game was written for those cards only. You are saying a PC GPU could not render that because the embedded code design of the PS3 but if say sony releases GTHD for PC and said only 7800 and 8800 and above cards then there would be no difference other than the 8800 would be able to do that + 16x AF and 4-8x AA.
ALSO that game look NICE
I'll buy a PS3 in a year or so so i can get FFXII and this GTHD and a HD TV... still using a SDTV lol
Imyourzero
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 3,701
- 0
- 86
I hope that no one who says $600 is excessive for a console bought an 8800GTX (or 7950GX2 when it launched) or a $600+ CPU. I agree that $600 is pricey for a console, and hopefully the PS3 will continue to trail behind the Wii/360 in sales, otherwise it'll only encourage higher console launch prices in the coming generations. However, when you consider what $600 will buy (either a very powerful gaming console + BluRay player that's ready to go out of the box, or a single component i.e. the GTX or a $600 CPU, both of which require hundreds more in equipment to be useful), the PS3 seems like a relative bargain.
I'm not so sure.
Watch this:
$120 - A64X2 3800+ (faster than the cell, by most accounts)
$80 - decent motherboard
$100 - gig of ram
$50 - PSU and case
$180 - 7800 graphics card
$70 - 250GB hard drive
Total: $600
You can build a good PC for about what a PS3 would cost!
Imyourzero
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 3,701
- 0
- 86
I think you misunderstood my post.
I totally agree with you--one can certainly build a decent gaming machine for the price of the PS3.I think PS3 is too expensive for what it does ATM, and certainly not a bargain when compared to other consoles. My point is simply that I hope the people saying $600 is crazy for a console aren't the ones paying that same price for just a GPU or just a CPU. When you consider $600 will buy a powerful game console + BluRay player OR a single component that is useless by itself, PS3 would seem like a bargain in that context. Not for the majority of members here that buy E6400/6600s and X1900/7900 series cards. Hope that clarifies things.
Hmm, no blu ray player, gig of ram is not enough, 7800 is outdated. I don't think that compares. Plus a 50 dollar PSU with a case is a POS. Don't forget a mouse and keyboard
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
OOO grafixxx. Just save yourself $500 or whatever it costs and stare at the screenshots all day, that will satisfy you :roll:
The Boston Dangler
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
i agree with the other posters...this doesn't work.
BUT why are people (aside from Imyourzero) comparing new rigs to new consoles? 99.9%+ of the people on anandtech have a computer of their own. those willing to purchase a $600 console generally have gaming rigs or a computer with decent specs. the question is not about whether console > rig or vice versa, but still, for those that have digressed, your question should be "can i upgrade my rig $600 worth and come out with a better gaming experienced compared to the PS3?" why get a new rig when you can just upgrade your own?
why some of you are getting so butthurt when someone says their PS3 is better than your rig i find real immature, but that's just my opinion. same stands for the OP trying to prove his PS3's worth
you play for fun, not for epenis. and if you do do it for the latter, grow the real one before you flaunt the electronic one.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
How much are Blu-Ray stand alone players going for these days? My wife won a PS3 along with an LCD HDTV and I'm thinking of just using the PS3 for it Blu-Ray DVD. If I can get a Blu-Ray stand alone player or even a HD-DVD player for cheaper I might just sell the PS3 but from what I've seen there isn't any cheaper. The vact that it plays games is a bonus..well for my kid and wife as I don't (well haven't) play any PC or Console games.
There is a lot of stupidity in this thread.
I remember this EXACT same issue arising when the PS2 came out - people comparing similarly built pcs and stating "within a year, WHATEVER the Ps2 can do, the PC will clearly out preform it"
And now you do it again with the Ps3.
GREAT
WONDERFUL
NOW WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE BUY THE PS2, XBOX, and GC IF THE PC IS CLEARLY SUPERIOR.
Despite the fact that the PC's ability to produce graphics FAR exceeds what the Ps2, Xbox and GC can acheive...that doesn't mean that the graphics for those consoles look like arse! ITS FUN to play it (not my point right here), and the STYLE that the games have make a DIFFERENCE when it comes to graphics (THE point right here).
You don't need 300,000 polys on a character in games like Rachet and Clank, or Final Fantasy, in Super Monkey Ball, or whatever game you want to think of. Btw - all these games DO look very good despite the fact that they are older. You don't need textures with resolutions of 1600*1200 to make a game still look good.
We should always PUSH towards high specs with hardware, but because games don't necessarily use it doesn't mean they are ugly. Each generation of consoles gets more and more progressively powerful than the last so we get what we want anyways, but in the end the deciding factor is simply who makes the best style of what they have to work with, and the most enjoyable games.
If pcs were truly superior and the better system , my friends wouldn't be playing FF12 all day and talking about how nice the game looks, or any other Ps2 game. Dragon Quest doesn't have the best technical graphics- but its style makes the game VERY pretty. Wii [hehe] wouldn't be playing Wii Spots where the polygon count of Tennis is probably less than what existed 5 years ago, but it doesn't mean the game still looks ugly. We wouldn't be playing DOTA on the PC because its clearly an "old game" that is ugly~ quite the contrary Warcraft 3 is still a very beautiful game with a unique style!
Even beyond DOTA, consider other pc games that are popular and fun to play: WOW may not have the most "updated graphics" in terms of high resolution textures, in terms of polygon counts, in terms of whatever you want to deal with...but it still fun. And despite that, it still looks DAMN good and pretty for a game.
Show me a new game with the most beautiful graphics, but no style and emotion...and I can show you games that are older WITH their own style that make the overall world look more beautiful, and feel more immersive.
So circle jerk about how the PS3 is already inferior to the PC. Graphics are clearly more than simple raw polygon counts, high resolution textures, and the application of HDR.
I remember this EXACT same issue arising when the PS2 came out - people comparing similarly built pcs and stating "within a year, WHATEVER the Ps2 can do, the PC will clearly out preform it"
And now you do it again with the Ps3.
GREAT
WONDERFUL
NOW WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE BUY THE PS2, XBOX, and GC IF THE PC IS CLEARLY SUPERIOR.
Despite the fact that the PC's ability to produce graphics FAR exceeds what the Ps2, Xbox and GC can acheive...that doesn't mean that the graphics for those consoles look like arse! ITS FUN to play it (not my point right here), and the STYLE that the games have make a DIFFERENCE when it comes to graphics (THE point right here).
You don't need 300,000 polys on a character in games like Rachet and Clank, or Final Fantasy, in Super Monkey Ball, or whatever game you want to think of. Btw - all these games DO look very good despite the fact that they are older. You don't need textures with resolutions of 1600*1200 to make a game still look good.
We should always PUSH towards high specs with hardware, but because games don't necessarily use it doesn't mean they are ugly. Each generation of consoles gets more and more progressively powerful than the last so we get what we want anyways, but in the end the deciding factor is simply who makes the best style of what they have to work with, and the most enjoyable games.
If pcs were truly superior and the better system , my friends wouldn't be playing FF12 all day and talking about how nice the game looks, or any other Ps2 game. Dragon Quest doesn't have the best technical graphics- but its style makes the game VERY pretty. Wii [hehe] wouldn't be playing Wii Spots where the polygon count of Tennis is probably less than what existed 5 years ago, but it doesn't mean the game still looks ugly. We wouldn't be playing DOTA on the PC because its clearly an "old game" that is ugly~ quite the contrary Warcraft 3 is still a very beautiful game with a unique style!
Even beyond DOTA, consider other pc games that are popular and fun to play: WOW may not have the most "updated graphics" in terms of high resolution textures, in terms of polygon counts, in terms of whatever you want to deal with...but it still fun. And despite that, it still looks DAMN good and pretty for a game.
Show me a new game with the most beautiful graphics, but no style and emotion...and I can show you games that are older WITH their own style that make the overall world look more beautiful, and feel more immersive.
So circle jerk about how the PS3 is already inferior to the PC. Graphics are clearly more than simple raw polygon counts, high resolution textures, and the application of HDR.
Nice!!! She must be lucky - not to just get a ps3 and LCD tv, but to be with you
I'd say keep it. Blue Ray players are expensive, and by the time they do drop to more decent prices, it will probably be (realistically) a year from now. On top of it, its harder to get more money for the PS3 than what it is worth. Just go for the Ps3 and use it to play DVDs, and let your kid has some fun every once in a while
You really can't compare the price the ps3 to the price of a PC because no one lost 250 dollars in the parts you listed.
Imyourzero
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 3,701
- 0
- 86
Good post...it's amazing how so many discussions around here are focused on GRAPHICS. Sure, good graphics enhance the experience, but we need to keep in mind it takes more than high resolutions and AA to make a good game. Gameplay and innovation are more integral to the overall experience IMO. Some people must agree, or Nintendo wouldn't have sold as many Wiis as they have.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
That's not how things work. If you have a faster processor, that just allows you to have more [FPS, physics, ai]. It doesn't make the graphics better.
This seems to fit with the subject.
I would like to see ingame "driving" shots. Not shots of what looks like replays. The original GT had better replay shots than were ever possible during actual gameplay
I would like to see ingame "driving" shots. Not shots of what looks like replays. The original GT had better replay shots than were ever possible during actual gameplay
The first link... nothing special. Too much evident aliasing on edges.
Second link... reflections look great. Still too much evident aliasing on edges.
Were these capped from a television? What resolution?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter