PC vs Console what's holding it back?

[WarriorWithin]

Comeon people, PC is lot better than any console, it's full of "things" just look at it's size, compared to a console (like ps3)... They would sure make the computers nice and slim like the consoles but aint gonna be the same performance. It's not like a secret "ingredients" used in the consoles for better overall performance. It's better that they are easier to carry around, but no way better in the performance than a personal computer. Can you put the new 256 ddr3 7800 geforce in a ps3?? Or how about 4GB of ddr2 memory?

 

[Leafblighter]

Can you put the new 256 ddr3 7800 geforce in a ps3??

Ummmmm.... thats exactly what they're doing though with the ps3. it's using a relative to the G70 chip which is in the 7800 called the RSX. and yes, it also will have 256 megs of dedicated video memory.

 

[vtohthree]

haha.... yeah in my opinion, there are two distinct advantages(just two really) over the PC. First is software(you can't get those exclusive Japanese publishing companies on pc for the most part: Konami, Namco, Square, Capcom, Temco, etc...), secondly is the convience of true plug and play(you don't have to screw with installing and compatibility options).


That is what may make me buy another next generation console, but I'm in no hurry, I don't play many games these days. The second reason is not so true anymore, PC's are very fluid in installation these days and actually working afterwards.

I remember back in the day there would be so many compatibiliy issues and hardware had to be the latest and greatest to even barely run some of the titles, I'm talking about in the mid 90's, you know what I mean... Man, it took me forever to get Mech Warrior 2 to run properly, along with Tie Fighter and a handful of old games on my 486 DX2(I got it when it was in its prime too, costed over 3 grand for just the system, not including the monitor). Screwing with the settings and what not, thats what made a console rule, just plug and play...but that's a different story.

 

[vtohthree]

Oh yeah, I only mentioned the advantages of the console, no need to mention the disadvantages, a console just plays games, haha... with a computer, you can do almost anything, enough said.

 

[Bowsky]

If I recall correctly the Final Fantasy VII tech demo, and all other PS3 real-time tech demos were run on computers using a pre-production GeForce 7800 gtx. These graphics can already be realized on top end computers, and as time passes more and more computers will have the same capability. After all the Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs are current generation PC hardware. Also, the CPUs are nothing fantastic unless they are running fully optimized code (Note this will probably take a year or more if past consoles are any indication and by that time PC CPUs will be technically superior to their console counter parts).

In terms of resolution, consoles have always played games at much lower settings and resolutions then PC games, AND will continue to do so through this generation. Even though the Xbox 360 and PS3 are targeting the HD crowed with 720p and 1080i (I'll get to Sony's 1080p later), the new generation of graphics cards are made to run games at resolutions above 1600x1200. I believe it was even on this site where the review clearly showed that the performance advantage of the 7800 gtx was not realized until he ran the benchmarks at settings such as 1920x1200 and 2048x1536. While Sony has made a big deal about their dual 1080p outputs, these will likely never be used. This gets right down to the hardware limitations. The PS3 does not have enough power to consistently produce one, let alone two 1080p images. It was mentioned that in many scenarios the PS3 will be running one 720p output for games.

PCs will always continue to be ahead of consoles performance. Although at times it may cost a lot. After all consoles are just using modern day computer technology, nothing more.


btw, sorry about not having any links to support any of my claims, I'm a bit tired right now and will try to get them up tomorrow. Most of them can be found in various AT articles.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Leafblighter

Can you put the new 256 ddr3 7800 geforce in a ps3??

Ummmmm.... thats exactly what they're doing though with the ps3. it's using a relative to the G70 chip which is in the 7800 called the RSX. and yes, it also will have 256 megs of dedicated video memory.

But.... can you put TWO of them in there?? 😀

 

[Jaskalas]

By the time the PS3 is in the store, our PCs will have two Geforce 8's for it to contend with. Just hope we can afford them.

 

[GML3G0]

Originally posted by: Hacp
The prescot has 31 pipelines 🙂.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CPU have ONE pipeline with THIRTY-ONE STAGES. 🙂

EDIT: Oh, it's been mentioned. OK. 🙂

 

[Check]

I didn't see this mentioned while going through the thread, might have missed it, but something to think about is that your computer has to run an operating system plus all of that other crap that is going on in the background WHILE you are playing the video game. I don't know what the PS2/Xbox are running, but I'm guessing it's not nearly the resource hog as Windows XP is, or even X11 (especially if you are using KDE as your GUI)

I completely agree with the fact that when games are developed for a consol the developers know exactly what the machine can handel, preformance wise where as when you are developing for a computer you are making it for a wide variety of machines (you can run HL2 on a GeforceFX 5200 >_< )

I've only owned a few consoles personally, a DC (cause they are sexy) and a GB (GBA now cause Spanish class sucked) because they stop making games for them and then move on to bigger and better things, whereas on my computer I can still run Doom if I want to, or HL2 if I am looking for some awesome graphics.

So in conclusion this post happened because I am bored at work and has no really new or infomative information in it. Have a nice day 🙂

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: Siddy
PS3 uses the new 'CELL' processors, which are much more advance than even dual-core cpu's.

As long as you are able to throw specialized work at them. A dual core processor will help even with everyday processing tasks - much more than a Cell would be able to.
However, once you use software that is optimized for the Cell, it could work 3x as fast as a dual core running dual core optimized software

good luck optimizing software for cell.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Hacp
The prescot has 31 pipelines 🙂. Also, if the cells were that advanced why isn't IBM or Sony using it for the mainstream user? Obviously the cell needs to be forcefed optimized code to run at its max potential, while regular cpus are more flexible.

presscot has a 31 stage pipeline, not 31 pipes.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BitByBit

Originally posted by: Hacp
The prescot has 31 pipelines 🙂. Also, if the cells were that advanced why isn't IBM or Sony using it for the mainstream user? Obviously the cell needs to be forcefed optimized code to run at its max potential, while regular cpus are more flexible.

Prescott has 31 pipeline stages.
This means it takes a minimum of 31 cycles to complete one instruction, but this does not mean two consecutive instructions take 62 cycles to complete - something I've touched on more than once before on these forums.

Both Microsoft's Xenon and Sony's (IBM's) Cell processor rely heavily on adequate software optimisations.
As a certain editor pointed out (shhh), single-threaded performance of these two CPUs will be less than stellar - certainly nothing in the league one can expect from present-day P4s or A64s.
Both Xenon and Cell are in-order architectures. Put simply, in-order execution = Low IPC.
Both Intel and AMD processors use out-of-order execution, that is, analysing instructions for depencies and re-ordering them, allowing more instructions to be executed simultaneously.
Cell and Xenon intend to compensate for this through more emphasis on TLP (thread-level parallelism) vs. ILP (replace: Instruction).
So in order for these two architectures to achieve high performance, software must be:
(a) Multithreaded,
(b) Optimised for in-order execution.
As many have pointed out however, it will be a while before software developers start releasing code that takes advantage of these architectures.
Having said that, both the PS3 and XBox 360 will easily out-perform the consoles they're replacing in single-threaded games, but it may be a while before they start performing on-par with contemporary high-performance PCs.

strange, i got the impression that the 733 celeron in the xbox would run a signel threaded app about as fast as xenon. Can someone link me the anandtech article that was removed?

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot Can someone link me the anandtech article that was removed?

http://www.ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833

 

[Vee]

The original assumption this thread is based on is false.
The PC does indeed outperform consoles by a healthy margin in terms of available gaming horsepower. That is - a PC equipped with a proper graphics solution.

The reasons some people fail to realize this are mostly subjective.
As some informed posters have already pointed at, console games are programmed for a single target platform and a fixed framerate. But it's not just a question of optimization. More important is reduction. Thus things are simplified or simply thrown out of the game until the game 'fits'. Corners are cut everywhere. Moves are teleported from one position to another instead of being animated. All aspects of graphics are greatly simplified. Lights, shadows, reflexes. The ten (about) times lower resolution and fuzzy TV screen gets away with much less polygons and details.

There's no reason for the developers to release a console game that doesn't perform properly.
While a PC game typically accumulates a large amount of sophistication in order to satisfy even future high-end gaming PCs.
Even things like AI is enhanced in a console to PC port.