Okay. So me and a buddy of mine have been debating about graphics between PC's and consoles. I keep trying to explain to him that PC's have been more powerful than consoles for quite a while now. What do you guys think??
You mean like... processing power per $ spent at new price?
I'm not too sure how accurate the measurement of Teraflops is to an entire sytem. Its probably more complex
Playstation 3's are supposed to be able to run at 2 Teraflops
NVIDIA GTX 295 is 1.78 Teraflops
Radeon HD 4870 X2 is 2.4 Teraflops
IBM Roadrunner supercomputer is a max of 1700 Teraflops
ok consoles generally have better graphics because the company puts all the same graphics system in all of their consoles so they can push the graphics to the limit knowing that all consoles they sell will be able to play it... in computers you generally dont see that... they have the ability to have superior graphics but the number of people with grapics cards capable of doing that shit is limited....
GPUs these days are crazy. Higher transistor counts and higher flops than CPUs
Take the PS3 for example. Something like 1.8-1.9 of the total Teraflops of the system belongs to the GPU alone, leaving the CPU with something in the gigaflops. I also think most dual/quad cores / AMDs equivilent. Thats what I read anyway
I think, per dollar spent, you get more power from a console
PCs will always win as long as they have porn
I don't see how you can go against a console. I love PC gaming, but you never experience lag, computability problems, installation problems, VISTA problems (UAC, etc) with consoles. Everything is pretty damn smooth.
Graphics have always had higher potential on PC. PC is the realm for FPS and RTS, no question.
Consoles probably are better for your buck, though.
Quote from "Lydeck" »
I love PC gaming, but you never experience lag, computability problems, installation problems, VISTA problems (UAC, etc) with consoles. Everything is pretty damn smooth.
I've had at least as many problems with Live as I've had with Steam, and my computer is a piece of shit with an average connection.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Walk tall, kick ass, learn to speak Arabic, love music and never forget you come from a long line of truth seekers, lovers and warriors.
-Hunter S. Thompson
GPUs these days are crazy. Higher transistor counts and higher flops than CPUs
Take the PS3 for example. Something like 1.8-1.9 of the total Teraflops of the system belongs to the GPU alone, leaving the CPU with something in the gigaflops. I also think most dual/quad cores / AMDs equivilent. Thats what I read anyway
The GPU in the PS3 isn't even close to as powerful as you think. Graphics chips in mediocre PC's blow it out of the water. The values given for teraflops is merely theoretical. I have an HD4870 that is rated at 1.2 teraflops and definitely more powerful than the PS3's graphics chip. The PS3 excels in CPU processoing power only.
Quote from "Lydeck" »
I don't see how you can go against a console. I love PC gaming, but you never experience lag, computability problems, installation problems, VISTA problems (UAC, etc) with consoles. Everything is pretty damn smooth.
Games have stuttering problems on consoles all the time. Lag isn't the right term for what you are referring to, but that's minor. Either way, you clearly haven't played RE5 on PS3.
In conclusion, the answer to the question is, computers will always be a step ahead of consoles and that's coming from me, so it's most certainly correct.
and that's coming from me, so it's most certainly correct.
Just whose internet satirist's persona are you ripping off anyway?
For me right now, computers and consoles are working practically for two different things. I like my computer because I'm able to play most of my old games on; the same games that I still love to this day and that a console wouldn't know what to do with.
Any brand new game these days I can't enjoy cause I simply don't have the specs on my machine to even adequately run them.
With my console, I'm currently playing newer games. And I realize that many of these games on my 360 must look even better on the latest PC, but all the new PC hardware is just not feasible for me at this time. Sometimes I just find consoles more accessible for certain games that I want to play, while my PC is capable of running plenty of other things my console couldn't possibly run. I'm not really thinking about which is better though in terms of better video cards, processor speeds, or all that junk. Maybe I should be, but I'm happier not giving a shit.
It's like, sure, Doom 3 looked way better on the PC than on the Xbox, but I never had a PC that could run it to its fullest potential. So it being on the Xbox allowed me to experience the game albeit it wasn't as super shiny and graphical looking. But for the most part, I don't think I notice the difference much anyway. There aren't a lot of moments in games where I'll stop to look at a thing just because it's dazzling in a graphical way. It's more important that a game is keeping me immersed in the gameplay and storyline. That doesn't mean I never stop to admire the view though. I remember doing it a lot especially in Halo 3 and Half Life 2, both games that I may never have played on the PC.
And okay, there are lag issues for either one. Sure I notice lag on my console games from time to time, but it's only lag that would've been worse had I been playing that game on the PC. And so I'm not making an argument here either that consoles are better than PCs in this way. But I am making an argument that my console is better right now than my ideal PC. But I still love my laptop. Either by using the compatibility options for programs or using DOSBox, I've been able to run almost every one of my older CD-ROM games that I still really enjoy today.
So is it that pertinent really to argue specs? Doesn't it all come down to what kinds of games you like to play and what kinds of platforms they're on? And I'll confess that another reason I don't talk much about hardware is because I really don't know squat about it. I used to once. But I never bothered keeping up on all the latest stuff available. I did learn though to appreciate both consoles and computers for gaming depending on what I wanted them for.
I feel the whole vs. argument is pointless anyway because ultimately it all comes down to personal preference. And not just preference in those two things, but games themselves, in which not all are available on one system or another.
And yes, I know this thread is mostly just to debate which are capable of better graphics, so argue away which have the best graphics capabilities. I'm merely imploring people not to place as much importance on that because the best graphics are not what makes a game in the end.
Games have stuttering problems on consoles all the time. Lag isn't the right term for what you are referring to, but that's minor. Either way, you clearly haven't played RE5 on PS3.
You're right, I play on the 360 so I never lag. :rolleyes: (Also have a PS3, which doesn't lag, soooo)
Also, anyone who claims they've had compatability problems with a console, or anything else other than the occasional lag from online, it talking out their ass.^_^
You're right, I play on the 360 so I never lag. :rolleyes: (Also have a PS3, which doesn't lag, soooo)
Also, anyone who claims they've had compatability problems with a console, or anything else other than the occasional lag from online, it talking out their ass.^_^
Fact: Consoles stutter all the time. Fact: Calling me a liar is foolish.
Personally I think PC's are better for the following reasons:
1. Better graphics / performance.
2. More control with a mouse in FPS.
3. Less networking issues.
4. Matchmaking / lobby systems generally don't exist.
5. Higher support as far as mods and updates go.
And I think console are better for the following reasons:
1. Better optimized for games.
2. Cheaper.
3. More user friendly.
As far as PC crashes and instability goes, it's just you building / using / buying a computer wrong. The only time I had crashes was when I had unstable memory. I RMA'd it and haven't had a single crash for two months now, and I haven't turned my PC off either. It's been folding / gaming this entire time.
Oh yeah, PC's also have a higher life expectancy and they can be upgraded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Everyone knows the story about the guy who made a super computer using 70 or so Playstation 2s?
There was a story going around that Saddam Hussein was buying up thousand of PS2s so he could create a super computer that was capable of managing inter-continental missile launch calculations... haha
Computers have great margin of improvement
but it all depends on the parts
the top of the line computer of these days can absolutely put any console to shame
but not too many ppl are gonna actually have that good of a computer
besides computers are constantly getting better
while consoles improve more over long durations
computers just improve rapidly
so computers are always gonna be more complex especially since consoles seem to be getting closer and closer to becoming actual computers lol
consoles also have no where near as much ram as a computer or equivalent
now for the games
consoles tend to have a wider variety of games that computers do since fps, rts, and rpgs are probaly the most common computer games
but there is no real way to compare the games in value since its all opinion
crysis sure blows a lot of games out of the water graphic wise
but god of war 3 claims to be just as good
so all we can do is wait and see but thats just general comparison =3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Be my Buddy =^.^=
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not too sure how accurate the measurement of Teraflops is to an entire sytem. Its probably more complex
Playstation 3's are supposed to be able to run at 2 Teraflops
NVIDIA GTX 295 is 1.78 Teraflops
Radeon HD 4870 X2 is 2.4 Teraflops
IBM Roadrunner supercomputer is a max of 1700 Teraflops
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
gamma11 > east
Take the PS3 for example. Something like 1.8-1.9 of the total Teraflops of the system belongs to the GPU alone, leaving the CPU with something in the gigaflops. I also think most dual/quad cores / AMDs equivilent. Thats what I read anyway
I think, per dollar spent, you get more power from a console
PCs will always win as long as they have porn
CyberPunk RP Nexus
Consoles probably are better for your buck, though.
I've had at least as many problems with Live as I've had with Steam, and my computer is a piece of shit with an average connection.
-Hunter S. Thompson
TED . LEAP . Woot . MF
The GPU in the PS3 isn't even close to as powerful as you think. Graphics chips in mediocre PC's blow it out of the water. The values given for teraflops is merely theoretical. I have an HD4870 that is rated at 1.2 teraflops and definitely more powerful than the PS3's graphics chip. The PS3 excels in CPU processoing power only.
Games have stuttering problems on consoles all the time. Lag isn't the right term for what you are referring to, but that's minor. Either way, you clearly haven't played RE5 on PS3.
In conclusion, the answer to the question is, computers will always be a step ahead of consoles and that's coming from me, so it's most certainly correct.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
For me right now, computers and consoles are working practically for two different things. I like my computer because I'm able to play most of my old games on; the same games that I still love to this day and that a console wouldn't know what to do with.
Any brand new game these days I can't enjoy cause I simply don't have the specs on my machine to even adequately run them.
With my console, I'm currently playing newer games. And I realize that many of these games on my 360 must look even better on the latest PC, but all the new PC hardware is just not feasible for me at this time. Sometimes I just find consoles more accessible for certain games that I want to play, while my PC is capable of running plenty of other things my console couldn't possibly run. I'm not really thinking about which is better though in terms of better video cards, processor speeds, or all that junk. Maybe I should be, but I'm happier not giving a shit.
It's like, sure, Doom 3 looked way better on the PC than on the Xbox, but I never had a PC that could run it to its fullest potential. So it being on the Xbox allowed me to experience the game albeit it wasn't as super shiny and graphical looking. But for the most part, I don't think I notice the difference much anyway. There aren't a lot of moments in games where I'll stop to look at a thing just because it's dazzling in a graphical way. It's more important that a game is keeping me immersed in the gameplay and storyline. That doesn't mean I never stop to admire the view though. I remember doing it a lot especially in Halo 3 and Half Life 2, both games that I may never have played on the PC.
And okay, there are lag issues for either one. Sure I notice lag on my console games from time to time, but it's only lag that would've been worse had I been playing that game on the PC. And so I'm not making an argument here either that consoles are better than PCs in this way. But I am making an argument that my console is better right now than my ideal PC. But I still love my laptop. Either by using the compatibility options for programs or using DOSBox, I've been able to run almost every one of my older CD-ROM games that I still really enjoy today.
So is it that pertinent really to argue specs? Doesn't it all come down to what kinds of games you like to play and what kinds of platforms they're on? And I'll confess that another reason I don't talk much about hardware is because I really don't know squat about it. I used to once. But I never bothered keeping up on all the latest stuff available. I did learn though to appreciate both consoles and computers for gaming depending on what I wanted them for.
I feel the whole vs. argument is pointless anyway because ultimately it all comes down to personal preference. And not just preference in those two things, but games themselves, in which not all are available on one system or another.
And yes, I know this thread is mostly just to debate which are capable of better graphics, so argue away which have the best graphics capabilities. I'm merely imploring people not to place as much importance on that because the best graphics are not what makes a game in the end.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
You're right, I play on the 360 so I never lag. :rolleyes: (Also have a PS3, which doesn't lag, soooo)
Also, anyone who claims they've had compatability problems with a console, or anything else other than the occasional lag from online, it talking out their ass.^_^
CyberPunk RP Nexus
Fact: Consoles stutter all the time. Fact: Calling me a liar is foolish.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Exactly what I was going to say.
Computers have way more potential if you have the money, but for most people, consoles are the way to go.
1. Better graphics / performance.
2. More control with a mouse in FPS.
3. Less networking issues.
4. Matchmaking / lobby systems generally don't exist.
5. Higher support as far as mods and updates go.
And I think console are better for the following reasons:
1. Better optimized for games.
2. Cheaper.
3. More user friendly.
As far as PC crashes and instability goes, it's just you building / using / buying a computer wrong. The only time I had crashes was when I had unstable memory. I RMA'd it and haven't had a single crash for two months now, and I haven't turned my PC off either. It's been folding / gaming this entire time.
Oh yeah, PC's also have a higher life expectancy and they can be upgraded.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
There was a story going around that Saddam Hussein was buying up thousand of PS2s so he could create a super computer that was capable of managing inter-continental missile launch calculations... haha
but it all depends on the parts
the top of the line computer of these days can absolutely put any console to shame
but not too many ppl are gonna actually have that good of a computer
besides computers are constantly getting better
while consoles improve more over long durations
computers just improve rapidly
so computers are always gonna be more complex especially since consoles seem to be getting closer and closer to becoming actual computers lol
consoles also have no where near as much ram as a computer or equivalent
now for the games
consoles tend to have a wider variety of games that computers do since fps, rts, and rpgs are probaly the most common computer games
but there is no real way to compare the games in value since its all opinion
crysis sure blows a lot of games out of the water graphic wise
but god of war 3 claims to be just as good
so all we can do is wait and see but thats just general comparison =3
Be my Buddy =^.^=