[japsander]

Originally Posted by KillerBug ...So your main problem with PCs is that you are not very handy with them? I guess I can see that. Just be warned: it is far more likely that you will have a PS3 hardware failure than a PC one...and if your PS3 mainboard dies, you can't recover the HDD contents like you can with a PC.

Lol, I'm very capable when it comes to computers, no need to get nasty and if you recall, I talked about the whole family using it, not just myself unless you expect my 6yr old to be fully compitent
BUT with a ps3 the work is made redundant. Plug and play, that is the beauty of consoles.

Now its clear to me that you have turned anti-console and more towards a PC fanboy but I'm not here to sway you away from it. I was simply pointing out why the ps3 is in no way pathetic compared with my similar aged PC, not start a pissing contest.

I have nothing against PC's whatsoever but I prefer to keep my work from my play, with a single PC I can't do that

[General Plot]

Also, it's important to consider the PS3's throughput as opposed to a PC. Since the PS3 doesn't have to run a system intensive OS (GameOS is a drop in the bucket compared to Windows or even Linux). The current processors (i7 for example) has a performance benchmark of around 70 GFLOPS (this is an i7 920 overclocked to 3.4 Ghz) as seen here. The Cell BE has been benchmarked at 100 GFLOPS Cell BE specs. Thus, floating point instruction is still better on the PS3 compared to today's best CPU's.

The RSX (PS3 GPU) was built to be the equivalent of 2 x GeForce 6800 Ultras in SLI. Consider that this is for a gaming console, and that's pretty extraordinary power, even by today's standards. However, when a developer doesn't take time to learn how to utilize this power correctly, you get poor performance, like slow frame rates, bad AA, poor textures, etc... You can't blame the hardware for these short comings.

Edit: Add to that the fact that PC's are CISC based and PS3's are RISC based (more efficient than PC's for multimedia) and it tips the scales even more.

[Amic3r]

@ever yone_hating_console_for_performance_etc
It is not console fault that something on 'slower' PC is better than on ps3 and vice versa, it's the coders fault. Examples? GTAIV, awful port from console on PC. Why? Bad coding. Same goes to Fallout 3, Fallout NV on ps3,Fallout 3 crashed more often for me on PS3 after installing latest update.
Console~=PC, PC is for work, internet, chatting, AND gaming. Consoles are for gaming, gaming only (with few extras), this is why it is utilized by not having 100 services running in background (like Windows), allows running games decently on less decent hardware.

[KillerBug]

Originally Posted by japsander Lol, I'm very capable when it comes to computers, no need to get nasty

I wasn't trying to be nasty...you just said some things that made be think you were a novice, like that you couldn't connect your PC to a TV and that you couldn't get your PC to play blurays. Maybe you just meant that you didn't feel like connecting it to a TV or buying a bluray drive.

Originally Posted by japsander and if you recall, I talked about the whole family using it, not just myself unless you expect my 6yr old to be fully compitent BUT with a ps3 the work is made redundant. Plug and play, that is the beauty of consoles.

I guess those things are true if you are on OFW...but I wouldn't trust a child with a CFW system. Still, I can (sorta) understand wanting a console for the split-screen, even if split-screen always gave me a headache.

Originally Posted by japsander Now its clear to me that you have turned anti-console and more towards a PC fanboy

I'm really not...if the XboX next had been released last year I would have that; I just got tired of waiting for a platform that could play games at 1080P...I am anti-sony...but that is not because of the PS3 so much as what they have done with it.

Originally Posted by japsander I have nothing against PC's whatsoever but I prefer to keep my work from my play, with a single PC I can't do that

I'm not sure that is self justifying...there is nothing saying you can't have two PCs instead of a PC and a PS3.

Originally Posted by General Plot Also, it's important to consider the PS3's throughput as opposed to a PC. Since the PS3 doesn't have to run a system intensive OS (GameOS is a drop in the bucket compared to Windows or even Linux). The current processors (i7 for example) has a performance benchmark of around 70 GFLOPS (this is an i7 920 overclocked to 3.4 Ghz) as seen here. The Cell BE has been benchmarked at 100 GFLOPS Cell BE specs. Thus, floating point instruction is still better on the PS3 compared to today's best CPU's. The RSX (PS3 GPU) was built to be the equivalent of 2 x GeForce 6800 Ultras in SLI. Consider that this is for a gaming console, and that's pretty extraordinary power, even by today's standards. However, when a developer doesn't take time to learn how to utilize this power correctly, you get poor performance, like slow frame rates, bad AA, poor textures, etc... You can't blame the hardware for these short comings. Edit: Add to that the fact that PC's are CISC based and PS3's are RISC based (more efficient than PC's for multimedia) and it tips the scales even more.

The CELL is amazing, and I don't deny that the PS3 is great for Folding @hom e...but I think you need to check your facts on the video chip...yes, it is twice as powerful as a single 6800U...but that isn't really saying much. The 6800U was a joke when it was new, and that was a very long time ago, in fact it was completely outdated by the time the PS3 prototypes were first demonstrated.

But the real problem is the ram, and it isn't even a matter of optimization. You can only do so much with so little...there comes a point when you are spending days trying to save a few KB, and the only other way to cut back is to cut features, lower texture qualities, etc. Anyway, just imagine trying to optimize a big game...I'm not talking about a linear game like Uncharted or something...but a massive sandbox. Here you are...the game is optimized to the point that it runs good on the 360 and perfect on the PC...do you spend 2 years optimizing it to run on the PS3, bankrupting your company in the process, or do you just release it as is?

[hamtah]

Originally Posted by KillerBug I recently ordered some new PC parts to upgrade my old workstation so it could play games...they have not arrived yet but Skyrim did...so I installed it on my old rig just for giggles...and it works wonderfully! Seriously...I am talking about a system with a dual core CPU, an old 3870, and a boot hard drive using software AES...the system hardly meets the minimum specs for this game, but it works great at 1080P with the settings turned up! The fact that the PS3 has problems with this game is just sad. I almost feel like I have wasted money on the new hardware since the latest games seem to run just fine on this outdated piece of crap. I am honestly amazed how terribly the PS3 runs compared with this junky old PC, and once I get my new parts, I will look at the PS3 the same way I currently look at my PS2.

And your graphics card?

[KillerBug]

I am sticking with the 3870 for the time being...it works well enough that I can wait for ATI or nVidia to release a new chip and then the old models will have a big price drop.

[japsander]

Yeah I meant I do not want to move my PC across the room or have wires everywhere :-)
I have my cfw ps3's eject button and disc slot taped and offline so there's no worry about it being updated. I'm not leaving it to chance

My PC is a similar age to the ps3 but cost a little more. Adding bluray would at the time increase the cost quite a bit. Add to that a decent controller etc and the ps3 is still the better option, especially now as at 720p in 3d, the ps3 outperforms 8800gt at the same resolution.

Maybe with today's prices I could build one that outperforms the ps3 at the same cost but at the time, I couldn't.

[jhax78]

Originally Posted by General Plot Also, it's important to consider the PS3's throughput as opposed to a PC. Since the PS3 doesn't have to run a system intensive OS (GameOS is a drop in the bucket compared to Windows or even Linux). The current processors (i7 for example) has a performance benchmark of around 70 GFLOPS (this is an i7 920 overclocked to 3.4 Ghz) as seen here. The Cell BE has been benchmarked at 100 GFLOPS Cell BE specs. Thus, floating point instruction is still better on the PS3 compared to today's best CPU's.

wow and you use those 100 GFLOPS for what oh yeah folding
otherwise there's nothing that utilizes that power

The RSX (PS3 GPU) was built to be the equivalent of 2 x GeForce 6800 Ultras in SLI. Consider that this is for a gaming console, and that's pretty extraordinary power, even by today's standards. However, when a developer doesn't take time to learn how to utilize this power correctly, you get poor performance, like slow frame rates, bad AA, poor textures, etc... You can't blame the hardware for these short comings.

2x 6800 ultra's extraordinary power, even by today's standards.
rofl if you want to game in low graphics indeed
but then again i payed more for my gfx card then a complete ps3 with games

in the end the ps3 is just a great console it replaces a lot of devices that would normally take up space under the tv
but it's getting outdated fast now compared to a pc's gfx power
it's time they come with the PS4

[General Plot]

Originally Posted by KillerBug The CELL is amazing, and I don't deny that the PS3 is great for Folding @hom e...but I think you need to check your facts on the video chip...yes, it is twice as powerful as a single 6800U...but that isn't really saying much. The 6800U was a joke when it was new, and that was a very long time ago, in fact it was completely outdated by the time the PS3 prototypes were first demonstrated. But the real problem is the ram, and it isn't even a matter of optimization. You can only do so much with so little...there comes a point when you are spending days trying to save a few KB, and the only other way to cut back is to cut features, lower texture qualities, etc. Anyway, just imagine trying to optimize a big game...I'm not talking about a linear game like Uncharted or something...but a massive sandbox. Here you are...the game is optimized to the point that it runs good on the 360 and perfect on the PC...do you spend 2 years optimizing it to run on the PS3, bankrupting your company in the process, or do you just release it as is?

Consider that in previous consoles, the standard was 32-64 MB system memory, with their GPU's only having 4-16 MB video memory available. The PS3 has 256 MB system and 256 MB video memory, which is 4-8x more system memory and 16-64x video memory than consoles in the previous generation. I'd say that's a pretty significant step up. Not to mention that if you're going to compare GPU horse power. RSX specs.

Originally Posted by jhax78 2x 6800 ultra's extraordinary power, even by today's standards. rofl if you want to game in low graphics indeed but then again i payed more for my gfx card then a complete ps3 with games

By today's standards in consoles, this is a pretty beefy GPU. And I double checked my resources (in the original E3 press conference where they debuted the PS3 for the first time, Nvidia CEO said it was the equivalent of 2 x GeForce 6800's in SLI). Seems they changed the specs afterwards, and it instead is the same as 2 x 7800's. Find a console with a more powerful GPU on the market today. You won't find one. And while PC GPU's are more powerful, consider how well the God Of War games looked on the PS2 with such a limited GPU as the GS. Since the PS3 doesn't rely on DirectX, it doesn't need alot of raw horsepower to perform well. PSGL is a very efficient graphic library that can get alot more bang out of hardware.

[Ubefuct]

Consoles are computers, they just have limited functionality written in code. Only upside to consoles is splitscreen. Between user accounts and user rights one can turn a PC into a noob friendly machine, like for kids. I used to have a computer set up this way, for ( @The time) my 4 & 2 year old half brothers. Just had game icons and no access or creation rights for anything but allowed games. Unreal tournament 2004 and halo were there favorites. Around the time of release a bluray player was about the same price, being dissapointed with the PSP browser and flash support I refused to buy one then. Unforturatly the expensive console shares the same downfall. You can't tell me that's not sad. Last the ps3 is pathetic because it is run by Sony. Sony is the ultimate pirate, card readers, USB ports, and Linux the ultimate theft.