• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I must just be stupid.

T

thequinox

Junior Member
I am having a hard time understanding how a console (mainly the PS3) is capable of playing games at full 1080 HD resolution while some high end PCs have trouble with it.

I am currently planning on buying a new gaming PC. I patiently waited (and am still waiting) for the AM2 to be released ever since I heard of it. Then I heard of Conrow and... well that's a different story. Anyway, I have read a couple posts on this forum about the PS3's cell processor and most people conclude that it would be very powerful if taken advantage of (which is apparently very hard to do).

Will the PS3 match/beat a high end PC, in which the processor, video card, etc cost $600 each? Is so, then how? and why is it so cheap?
 
1080 is not that high of resolution and you can probably beat the PS3 with a $100 processor $70 in ram $70 motherboard $50 power supply and a $300 video card. and have much more utility.....that is unless you want a Blueray Drive.
 
Its just consoles are optimised for their hardware, hopefully vista maybe fixes the stupid Direct X so it works better. Hardware has so much potential, it just the crappy software cant use it properly.

Also they are loosing money on the consoles and making up on the game sales.
 
If you only use the PC for games, then there is no reason to get a PC vice a PS3. Just gaming on a $2500 PC is just a waste.
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
If you only use the PC for games, then there is no reason to get a PC vice a PS3. Just gaming on a $2500 PC is just a waste.
Click to expand...


True dat

The answer to your question: PS3 doesnt have to run windows.... your PC does.
 
Originally posted by: robertk2012
1080 is not that high of resolution and you can probably beat the PS3 with a $100 processor $70 in ram $70 motherboard $50 power supply and a $300 video card. and have much more utility.....that is unless you want a Blueray Drive.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I don't know, the PS3 sports some pretty heavy processing power. If an Xbox 360 can run Oblivion, I'm guessing a PS3 can do just about the same.
 
so 1080x1920 would not be a high res. last time a heard even x1900xtx cannot always play at that res.
to answer the wuestion its cuz both xbox360 and ps3 are much more expensive and sold at a loss.
 
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
so 1080x1920 would not be a high res. last time a heard even x1900xtx cannot always play at that res.
to answer the wuestion its cuz both xbox360 and ps3 are much more expensive and sold at a loss.
Click to expand...

You mean 1920x1080 ...

Anyway, compared to 1920x1200 or 2048x1280 or 2560x1600 (apples 30inch screen anyone?) its indeed not that impressive, especially since they dont run high AA and AF settings, which is what kills performance on your 1900xtx example.

Shouldnt this be in the video forum instead? Not like the CPU in these consoles is responsible for the majority of the eye candy in games..
 
1920x1080 not high a resolution?

Last I heard, standard PC gaming was 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

But FYI, PS3/XBox360 is specialized hardware requiring specialized coding. Moreover, they usually average around 30 -60fps.
 
Originally posted by: dexvx
1920x1080 not high a resolution?

Last I heard, standard PC gaming was 1024x768 or 1280x1024.

But FYI, PS3/XBox360 is specialized hardware requiring specialized coding. Moreover, they usually average around 30 -60fps.
Click to expand...

Shows how little you know about gaming trends. Go look in the video section, plenty people there demanding much higher resolution for their gaming pleasure, preferably with lots of AA and AF too. Many consider 16x12 to be the bare minimum.

Btw, I do play at 12x10.

 
Originally posted by: Griswold
Shows how little you know about gaming trends. Go look in the video section, plenty people there demanding much higher resolution for their gaming pleasure, preferably with lots of AA and AF too. Many consider 16x12 to be the bare minimum.

Btw, I do play at 12x10.
Click to expand...

Right...

First off, if people are happy about the resolution testing, they won't be demanding to keep it the same.

Second off, last I read the HL2 computer survey, about 3/4 of all gamers who registered with the test play at 800x600, 1024x768, or 1280x1024. The gamers that play on 1600x1200 are in the minority. Many people do consider 1600x1200 to be the bare minimum. But for everyone of those people out there, there are at least 5 people that do not consider it.

Third off, 1920x1080 > 1600x1200 in terms of pixel area.
 
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.
 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
If you only use the PC for games, then there is no reason to get a PC vice a PS3. Just gaming on a $2500 PC is just a waste.
Click to expand...

If I understand this correctly, it says that having a $2500 PC and only using it for gaming is a waste.

Given how much you'd have to spend on graphics cards to get to $2500, what the hell else would you use the PC for? You saying that spending $2500 and not using it for word processing is such a waste? Or not using it for video encoding? I don't get it. No other application could convey the money spent to the user like a game would.

That said, I guess you can't really justify spending that much money on any entertainment device... but this is Merica and folks do it all the time with their home theaters, motorcycles, and fishing boats. The gaming PC is just more nontraditional than these other money drains.

I think I typed way too much considering I'm not even sure if that's what you meant. 😕
 
if i remmeber right the consoles have the ability to play at 1080 but are the current games at that resolution are at 720?

I think the 1080 was just a marketing ploy.
 
People think HD gaming on TVs is so amazing when the Samsung Syncmaster 19" has supported 1920x1440p@74hz for 3 years now. TVs do 1920x1080 at what 60hz right?
 
Originally posted by: EffeX
People think HD gaming on TVs is so amazing when the Samsung Syncmaster 19" has supported 1920x1440p@74hz for 3 years now. TVs do 1920x1080 at what 60hz right?
Click to expand...
You are comparing a 19" screen to a HDTV of 50"+? It isn't the res., it is the screen realestate that makes it so "amazing".

 
Originally posted by: Fullmetal Chocobo
If you only use the PC for games, then there is no reason to get a PC vice a PS3. Just gaming on a $2500 PC is just a waste.
Click to expand...

Not if you want multiplayer network games, and editable maps, custom loaded maps, etc....
 
Originally posted by: thequinox
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.
Click to expand...

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.
 
Originally posted by: Cooler
Originally posted by: thequinox
I have to agree with the rest of the people on this thread, I personally think 1080 is a huge resolution to play games at. Most people game at 1280x1024 native or 1440x900 if they are using a wide screen. I put this post under CPU because it was originally a question about the power of the "cell" processor. I just don't see how these systems can outperform/match the power of a PC running at those resolutions, even if they are sold at a loss.
Click to expand...

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.
Click to expand...

If the 3 core power pc chip the xbox 360 has is anything like a G5 then you are talking about a pretty powerful chip there.
 
Remember 1080 is interlaced.

Also 1080 is overhyped for a gaming console unless you own a 60" or larger rear projection. Why you ask? For example the human eye at 20/20 vision can only see about 800 x 480 pixels at 12 feet with a 42" 16x9 display.

Now if you hooked it up to a computer monitor and sat 2 ft away you'll be fine.
 
Originally posted by: Jamie571
Remember 1080 is interlaced.

Also 1080 is overhyped for a gaming console unless you own a 60" or larger rear projection. Why you ask? For example the human eye at 20/20 vision can only see about 800 x 480 pixels at 12 feet with a 42" 16x9 display.

Now if you hooked it up to a computer monitor and sat 2 ft away you'll be fine.
Click to expand...


There is 1080p and it is awesome. I dont think they really plan on having 1080 games for the xbox 360. It strugles at times with oblivion at 720.
 
Originally posted by: Jamie571
Remember 1080 is interlaced.
Click to expand...

correction: 1080i is interlaced, 1080p (which ps3 supposedly supports) isn't.

i'm also surprised that no one has mentioned this- Sony takes a huge hit with every PS3 they sell. It costs Sony at least $1000 to produce each PS3, they just sell them at a lower price because no average consumer would buy a $1000 console. Sony takes hits on the console itself to get it disseminated, then makes big bucks on licensing fees when games are sold at $60+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top