Console or PC?

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

Lenny;
Given the limitations in high definition TV picture resolution/frame rate; does the cell processor (an admittedly superior number cruncher) make a game more enjoyable than an adequate computer (leaving out the rare and expensive Uber gaming rigs)?

I really can't say as I have only played a few games on the PS3 and haven't had the opportunity to do a head to head comparison;

I'm not a PC gamer, so I can't really make comparisons myself, either. The games I have played on the PC are things like the Guild Wars series, and I'm currently halfway through the original Half-Life.

but we can look at the display;

The last time I looked high def 1080p TV was 1080 x 1920 resolution with 30 frames/sec NTSC (US) and 25 frames PAL (Europe), some blue ray players apparently put out 24 frames/sec.

For films, yes.

Films are filmed in 24fps, for some reason, yet most players output in FPS that aren't divisable by 24. So what they do, is repeat every 24th frame to make 25. Blu-ray players, however, output in 24fps (indeed, you can turn that option on and off on the PS3), making the film smoother. At higher definitions, you're much more likely to see a stutter every now and then because of the repeated 24th frame if your player isn't outputting in 24fps.

Personally, I think this is adequate for gaming but some folks maintain that much higher frame counts are highly desirable (I can't argue this one).

Frame rate doesn't really bother me in games (for example, the 30fps vs. 60fps argument just passes me by), but I do see why higher framerates are desirable. Take any EA game that has been ported to the PS3. Yes, I'll let you choose any game out of every single one that's on the PS3, because they all have the same problems - the framerate goes up and down like a yo-yo on steroids. And it is noticeable. If you start at 30fps (which most EA games for the PS3 are), then it's a lot more noticeable when the oh-so-wonderful programming by the EA teams kicks in, and everything slows down because you decided to be silly and shoot an explosive barrel. Oh, sorry guys, I forgot that you can't program for toffee. I had the problem a lot in The Orange Box (which, for some insane reason, Valve gave to EA... maybe because Gabe Newell vomits everytime he hears the word"PS3") - a head crab leaps out at me, and suddenly I'm seeing the world in 3fps. This horrible four legged creature is slowly coing closer and closer, I raise my gun equally slowly, mash the fire button, then the head crab is past and the wall opposite looks like a dot-to-dot puzzle. Then everything slows down again and something bites the back of my head.

Now if the starting point were 60fps the slowdown would hit something like 30fps - yes, you'd see it slow down, but the game would still run at a normal speed.

And at 60fps, things just look better.

Many PC monitors will meet or exceed the high def TV resolution so I would not expect to see much of a difference, picture wise, on a head to head PS3 vs a good (not uber) PC comparison.

However the PS3 seems to use a chip that is similar to the old 7800 nvidia series video card for graphics. This is barely acceptable in todays PC gaming community (many/most would say it is long obsolete).

Based on, but not the same.

The graphics processor in the PS3 is called the RSX and, whilst it does draw from the old 7800 series cards, the architecture is a lot different, simply because it's in a console.

I don't know the specs, or the fuel consumption and revs per minute of the thing, but I do know it works, and it works a treat. Look, for example, at the first Motorstorm game. The graphics were mind-bogglingly good, and it was a launch title!! Take a look at Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - one of the prettiest games I've ever seen. Metal Gear Solid 4 is coming out in a couple of months, and that's got some amazing graphics. The GPU more than lives up to today's standards. To be honest, I think that Drake's Fortune looks nicer than Crysis... and it'll run on every PS3 without a problem, and with no slowdown.

Something else interesting is that processor can dedicate a core to graphics - not just the processing of them, but also as a kind of RAM... don't ask me how it works, because I haven't a clue.

Overall if we are talking raw computing power the PS3 cell processor would have to come out on top of the PC.

This give me a picture of a great processor tied up by obsolete graphics hardware and a lack of applications (other than games).

It is interesting that Crysis is allegedly being ported to PS3 and this is considered by many the only console platform that has much of a chance to run it. It is also interesting that the CEO of Sony has referred to the PS3 as a computer not a console. People are using them to fold at home, and I would expect future inroads into the PC realm by this technology. (For PC prices ($425-$800+) you should expect more than just games and movies, IMO).

Ahhh, now we're getting to the hidden aspects that many people just glance over.

Did you know that any USB or bluetooth keyboard/mouse will connect to the PS3? So games such as Unreal Tournament 3, which support them, can be played using a keyboard and mouse. Then there's the fact that the PS3 browser (whilst admittedly not the best, still does the job, and is being constantly updated with the firmware updates) is a full browser.

Like a PC, you can swap out the HDD the PS3 comes with, a whack in a bigger one - a 5400rpm 2.5" drive, and you're sorted. You can use 7200rpm if you want, but it is actually slower. Then again, with 500gb 5400rpm drives which are cheap, why do you need to spend the extra money for a 7200rpm one?

And the feature that turns the PS3 into more than a games console (albeit one with top notch media capabilities) - the choice, from out of the box, to install a Linux distro. And if you want to really goferit, you can install Wine on your distro, and emulate, say, Windows XP.

I do kind of like Blueray and when Sony satisfies its greed (when the price becomes reasonable for a combo burner, they are dropping) I will stick one in the PC. (Its an advantage of PCs that you can do this).

It's not just Sony, although they are possibly the biggest player in the Blu-ray Association. For example, the PS3 is the cheapest and most feature-rich Blu-ray player on the market, and I think the only one that can be updated with firmware for the latest Blu-ray features, such a BD Live, and BD Profile 2.0 (which will, amongst other things, allow you to rip Blu-ray discs to the PS3 HDD, and then put them onto the PSP and watch them on the go).

The PC drives are probably not regulated by Sony, to be honest. I haven't a clue why the prices are still so high (but then again, how much did DVD burners cost when they first arrived? I bet they werent cheaper than Blu-ray burners. I can remember when a DVD player cost £500!).

The number of cores is not really an issue for me on the PC since the applications to fully utilize multi threading are only slowly being implemented; even in games. This may be one reason why the Cell processor has not dominated the PC market - few applications may be capable of using it.

I have seen references to 6 and 8 core chip packages from both AMD and Intel (don't hold your breath, but maybe next year). 8 core, not single processor package, work stations have been available for at least a year, and I believe that at least one company is said to be making a server based on the (IBM, Toshiba, Sony) Cell processor.

Enjoy!

It's IBM, I think. Toshiba have recently bought a huge majority of Sony's factories that manufacture the chips for nearly $1 billion (something like $895 million, I think - it was announced two days after Toshiba announced that they were discontinuing the HD-DVD format), in a deal which is designed to up the production of the chips, lower the costs, and eventually get the 45nm versions of the chips out into the market and also into the PS3.

IBM's next model of Supercomputer is apparently going to have something like 13,000 Cell processors, and about 10,000 of AMDs dual core processors.

Talking about servers and the cell processor, a lot of companies are actually buying PS3s and installing Linux on them for use in server farms. They're a lot cheaper than standard servers or similar power, yet work just as well.

An example of this is the servers for the PS3 online multiplayer game Warhawk:





---

I fear we may be taking this away from "Console or PC?" slightly... then again, I suppose we are arguing the finer points of the technology behind consoles and PCs.

[Happy Joe]

I suppose we are arguing the finer points of the technology behind consoles and PCs.

Indeed! and we are entering a gray area as the PS3 could be used as and considered a PC with appropriate software (as you mentioned) but most people use it as a console.

The important thing is to enjoy gaming, on what ever platform.

Enjoy!!

[edott]

I think most shooter games are better on console. most strategy games play better on the PC.

[sarakoth]

I think more competitive gamers go for pcs while casual ones go for consoles (mostly Wii but also 360 or PS3)

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by Connavar

Im not a total newbie to fixing up my pc but i dont want to bother with that.


With new generation consols like PS3 who is becoming more like the strongest gaming pc out there is no need. Specially when most famous PC games makes to consol these days.

Not that i care for pc games. IMO there is no need to bother when you will get games like Oblivion,other pc games to your consol anyway.

Difference beteween consol and PC gaming is like the difference beteween Xbox 2 and PS3 you are the getting same games near the same quality that there isnt as big difference as before.

Many major competitive games are PC exclusive. Also, even an average home PC nowadays can match consoles in graphics.

[Ranwulf]

I have to say console, for a surprising reason.

I think i have sensitive eyes or something and time on the PC kinda messes them up. I'd imagine distance from the screen would make it better, though I haven't exactly tested that.

[Aes]

I'd have to say PC, because I can play (or will be able to eventually) just about everything on a console over the computer, as well as many computer-only games.

Besides, awesomeness like this is something you'll only find on a PC:

Immaterial & Missing Power

Or!

This is for real, I swear

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by Aes

I'd have to say PC, because I can play (or will be able to eventually) just about everything on a console over the computer, as well as many computer-only games.

Welllll... EA games, yeah (but who seriously wants to?), and a majority of the 360 exclusive games because Microsoft like a bit of the green stuff (money!! Illegal minded fools). You won't find most of the Wii games on the PC, or the PS3 games on the PC - MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance, Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, the FFs, Heavy Rain, Eight Days. All brilliant games (from what's been shown, at least), which only owners of the Black Behemoth can play.

[Aes]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Welllll... EA games, yeah (but who seriously wants to?), and a majority of the 360 exclusive games because Microsoft like a bit of the green stuff (money!! Illegal minded fools). You won't find most of the Wii games on the PC, or the PS3 games on the PC - MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance, Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, the FFs, Heavy Rain, Eight Days. All brilliant games (from what's been shown, at least), which only owners of the Black Behemoth can play.

Oh, I'm referring to emulators with regards to console games on the PC, which could almost doesn't count because they're technically still console games, but it's close enough. I love my computer because it lets me still play these games even though the actual cartridges don't retain save data anymore, systems no longer work, etc. Plus, with a console, it's a lot more difficult to be in charge of all the data than it is with files on a PC. Score another set of points for PC.

If we're strictly speaking about present-day games, then it's really tough to say. PC if you enjoy competing with people on the internet, or console if you either like to single-player it, or compete with friends when they come over to your house.

It's really tough for me to choose between the two if this is the criteria. :/

[Happy Joe]

console if you either like to single-player it, or compete with friends when they come over to your house.

Except for those of us who LAN or maintain a network of computers/work stations for just this purpose; (Quake4, Doom 3, Serious Sam + friends+ beer on a bunch of PCs, or most other FPS; team, free for all or coop. Some RPGs are fun too Diablo2/LOD or Sacred for example). (Currently we can do Crysis on 3 of my machines).

I very much prefer group game play where everyone has their own monitor/viewpoint, I suppose than you could get a bunch of people to bring both consoles and TVs though (we used to do it a lot with CRT monitors and computers when LAN gaming, back in the stone age).

Enjoy!

[A1R5N1P3R]

PC is ideal for MMO and RTS (for now). But mouse is just too easy for aiming in FPS and is no challenge at all. It's also a moneypit for upkeep, and for no good reason; just a scam between game dev and hardware companies to have us part with $$. So I say Console.

Console gaming has Driving and Flying in the bag, then you add the RPG market, and the more imaginative shooters; ye Console is where it's at.

[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by A1R5N1P3R

PC is ideal for MMO and RTS (for now). But mouse is just too easy for aiming in FPS and is no challenge at all. It's also a moneypit for upkeep, and for no good reason; just a scam between game dev and hardware companies to have us part with $$. So I say Console.

Console gaming has Driving and Flying in the bag, then you add the RPG market, and the more imaginative shooters; ye Console is where it's at.

If mice and keyboard made everyone better at FPS games there wouldn't be the competitive industry there is today in multiplayer gaming. And you've obviously never heard of GTR2 or Flight Simulator X

[Joel007]

I have plenty of fun with both PC and console.
In general for single player games, or multiplayer online I will use the PC. I tend to use the consoles to play games with other people in the same room.

[Sylvetra_Snake]

Originally Posted by edott

I think most shooter games are better on console. most strategy games play better on the PC.

I prefer shooter games on the PC, they seem made for it as the mouse is so easy to use, way better than analogue sticks. Strategy games are deffo built for the PC such as Dawn Of War and Warcraft etc.

[Memnoch]

The Quake games and similar are good examples of where PC kicks ass compared to Consoles . . . Plus RPG n Strat games need the power of a PC