Console gaming vs high end computer - Page 6 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Which one is the best in video card ?
ATI 1 10.00%
Geforce 9 90.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-29-2005, 10:37 PM   #51 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 419
Default

this topic is stupdi u got flanker repeating what sony says about ps3 beign supercomputer? and that a ps3 is way 10x better then a pc. then i ask have u seen the games? have becnhed marks the ps3? no! show us some bechmarks! through benchmarks is that most ppl pikced the 6600gt as the value card. and most pick the amd 64 processors. I rember the ps2 beign the god of all precessing power with toy story graphics it can do X flops and X polygons per seconds ans this and that. u know hwo they got thoses nunbers? they got a calcualtor and and multyply mhz time ram raised to numbers of dumb *** people who gooan belive this shi. STFU! dude u cant proves thoses numbers so STFU! Like i said 6600gt and amd64 are winners cuase fo becnmarks show me benchmarks not nunbers crunched in a calculator. I mean does anybody compare a 6600gt polygon per second to a 800xl no they benchmark then danm it! I know this is long but i hate and ppl just babble nosene like this. Let go ply soem videogames.

The pole pc cause i can multi task watch me play bf2 now cause i can.
__________________

efd753 is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:05 PM   #52 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,842
Send a message via AIM to lazerman Send a message via Yahoo to lazerman
Default

I would go with both. I have my Xbox 360 system on pre-order (the full system, not the core).
__________________

__________________
The Stargate MMORPG
lazerman is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:43 PM   #53 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 718
Default

I'll probably get a PS3 just becuase of new tech in it and because of games like GT, MGS, and GTA. I wont be getting one untill the price drops though because there's no way I'm shelling out $500+ on a freaking console.
j4ckaL is offline  
Old 10-29-2005, 11:50 PM   #54 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker
Total noob response. You're still comparing older consoles. And a game doesn't "go over one trillion flops." Seems to me like all you know is what I've told you. Do you even know what a flop is?

The PS3 totally destroys the X360 in power, but the X360 sacrifices CPU power for features. Which is why I intend on buying both.
I mean that a game will not need a system with those kind of numbers for a while. And I used the PS2 cause I was showing the kind of transition from PS2 games that came out at launch to new PS2 games that come out now (I can't exactlly go into the future and tell you the difference now can I?); the graphics on the new games (not next-generation) blow the origional games away graphically. I never compared current consoles to PCs at all.

I'm just saying that the games that come out at launch will not use all of the consoles power. I was not impressed by Sony's tech demos at E3 because you can have the most über system in the world but if their is no good games for it then it is a paper weight. Where are the games, Sony? The only thing that got me jumping up and down about the PS3 was MGS4 and Konomi has always excelled at making very nice graphics (just look at MGS2 when it first came out).

The PS3 is not going to "destroy" the Xbox360 at all, if it is better then it is not going to be then not by much. Where are you learning your info? If your that gullible that you think the PS3 is that much better then the 360 then I guess you must be 1) a Sony fanboy or you hate Xbox or 2) beleive whatever you read(do you know anything about Corporate America?) thats why I am not sure if the R520 is going to be better then the GTX because I have not seen RELIABLE sources yet.

I think that you or whatever you read is biased. I don't know if the PS3 is going to be better or not because it HAS NOT COME OUT YET or is not near release, so I am not going to be telling everybody that it is going to be better.

I am leaning toward the 360 because

1) They actually had playable games at E3

2) The games look really good

3) Their controller "destroys" the PS3's controller

4) It is going to be 300 bucks at minimum

5) It is going to have portable HD, remote controll, Head set, and HDTV cables (for you rich people out there with them expensive HDTVs) out of the box (the premium box anyways)

6) Xbox live

7) Can connect to a Windows Media Center PC

8) Doesn't look like a fax machine or a printer lol

9) It is an American product

10) It is not going to be crap quality like Sony (ties in with 9)

11) It is not all spec sheet like the PS3.

12) Has some "Marketplace" or something (don't know much about it)

The PC is going to live strong because of it's uses, it's gameplay, it's community (such as mods), and having your custom made PC is something to proud of instead of just being a kid with a console just like everbody else. Yes, consoles are cheaper then PC's but that's exactlly why they make consoles dur!
Waphlez is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 01:44 AM   #55 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Long response, but still noob response. Now wait while I adress each of your paragraphs;

Quote:
I mean that a game will not need a system with those kind of numbers for a while. And I used the PS2 cause I was showing the kind of transition from PS2 games that came out at launch to new PS2 games that come out now (I can't exactlly go into the future and tell you the difference now can I?); the graphics on the new games (not next-generation) blow the origional games away graphically. I never compared current consoles to PCs at all.
Thats somewhat right. The newest games for Xbox360 will be like the best games for Xbox. Thats because developers had very little time to make the games for these multi-threaded platforms. But when the PS2 came out, it used a Pentium 3 processor, and it was only slightly better than the Pentium 3 PCs of the time. This time, its a much bigger leap.

Quote:
I'm just saying that the games that come out at launch will not use all of the consoles power. I was not impressed by Sony's tech demos at E3 because you can have the most über system in the world but if their is no good games for it then it is a paper weight. Where are the games, Sony? The only thing that got me jumping up and down about the PS3 was MGS4 and Konomi has always excelled at making very nice graphics (just look at MGS2 when it first came out).
Thats because Sony didn't have any games ready at E3 dude...games don't just come out of thin air. It takes a LONG time and HARD work to make a game, ok? I've actually taken a video game design class. Some retards say, "OMFG, why isn't this game out yet?!?! OMFG...*insert company name* sucks uber noob dik...like...OMGzzzzzzz..." Well, its not that easy...ESPECIALLY multi threaded games.

Quote:
The PS3 is not going to "destroy" the Xbox360 at all, if it is better then it is not going to be then not by much. Where are you learning your info? If your that gullible that you think the PS3 is that much better then the 360 then I guess you must be 1) a Sony fanboy or you hate Xbox or 2) beleive whatever you read(do you know anything about Corporate America?) thats why I am not sure if the R520 is going to be better then the GTX because I have not seen RELIABLE sources yet.
Ok. Thats it. You're officially a freakin idiot now. Dude, I have 1100 posts for a reason; I'm not a retard. I don't take things at face value and I'm not a fanboy for anyone. I base ALL MY ARGUMENTS on facts. The PS3 WILL destroy the X360 because the physical power of the CPU HAS BEEN PROVEN, OK?! Does that f*cking get through to your skull?! Flops are Floating-point operations per second; they are decimal calculations. A Playstation 3 does 2 Teraflops while the X360 does 1 Teraflop. Each of those is incredible because a PC does ~5 Gigaflops. THAT HAS F*CKING BEEN PROVEN. I don't know what other kind of benchmark that other ******* above you needs.

Quote:
I think that you or whatever you read is biased. I don't know if the PS3 is going to be better or not because it HAS NOT COME OUT YET or is not near release, so I am not going to be telling everybody that it is going to be better.
How many products do you know the performance of after they come out (with the exception of the *70s)? Thats right. Only one. Benchmarks come out for every piece of hardware ok? My sources are not biased. Benchmarks are benchmarks. You can't be biased with flops, they are what they are.

As for your goddamn numbers;

1.) I already said it; Sony isn't ready yet. But they had previews based on the hardware.
2.)So did the previews.
3.)How do you know? You just said you couldn't play with the PS3. How do you know the X360 controller is better? Have you seen the benchmarks? *snicker*
4.) OK? This is a comparison between the Consoles and the PCs, not the PS3 and X360...
5-8.) See 4...
9&10.) Now who's the American fanboy? The quality of Sony's products is the same as, or better than that of Microsoft...*cough*Windows*cough*.
11.)It was at a time...and still is. The X360 isn't out yet...
12.)WTF.

Consoles have mode too dude...shows what you know.
And people build custom PCs not because of the sense of pride (though its a plus) but because they can get something better for lesser price. You can go ahead and be the dude with the computer, while I'm going to be the dude with the Console that rapes your PC.

Now for this other ******* that made me start this flame war;

Quote:
This topic is stupdi u got flanker repeating what sony says about ps3 beign supercomputer? and that a ps3 is way 10x better then a pc. then i ask have u seen the games? have becnhed marks the ps3? no! show us some bechmarks! through benchmarks is that most ppl pikced the 6600gt as the value card. and most pick the amd 64 processors. I rember the ps2 beign the god of all precessing power with toy story graphics it can do X flops and X polygons per seconds ans this and that. u know hwo they got thoses nunbers? they got a calcualtor and and multyply mhz time ram raised to numbers of dumb *** people who gooan belive this shi. STFU! dude u cant proves thoses numbers so STFU! Like i said 6600gt and amd64 are winners cuase fo becnmarks show me benchmarks not nunbers crunched in a calculator. I mean does anybody compare a 6600gt polygon per second to a 800xl no they benchmark then danm it! I know this is long but i hate and ppl just babble nosene like this. Let go ply soem videogames.
About 1% of my info comes from Sony. I have contacts (not really, but I read a ****load of reliable stuff). Wow. have I seen the games...ok...have you been to E3? PS3 isn't even ready yet, much less the games. But they had previews showing what the PS3 is capable of. And you know what? They looked real. My dad couldn't tell the difference between the game and reality. Benchmarks? I've seen them, though I can't show you. Thats where the flops come from. You're a dumbass if you DON'T believe this ****. STFU dude, I CAN prove those numbers STFU! Yes, people DO compare the polygons of a 6600GT and a X800XL you n00b. I know this is long, but I have people that babble nonsense like him.

Take a grammar class dude.
Flanker is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 01:11 AM   #56 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
this topic is stupdi u got flanker repeating what sony says about ps3 beign supercomputer? and that a ps3 is way 10x better then a pc. then i ask have u seen the games? have becnhed marks the ps3? no! show us some bechmarks! through benchmarks is that most ppl pikced the 6600gt as the value card. and most pick the amd 64 processors. I rember the ps2 beign the god of all precessing power with toy story graphics it can do X flops and X polygons per seconds ans this and that. u know hwo they got thoses nunbers? they got a calcualtor and and multyply mhz time ram raised to numbers of dumb *** people who gooan belive this shi. STFU! dude u cant proves thoses numbers so STFU! Like i said 6600gt and amd64 are winners cuase fo becnmarks show me benchmarks not nunbers crunched in a calculator. I mean does anybody compare a 6600gt polygon per second to a 800xl no they benchmark then danm it! I know this is long but i hate and ppl just babble nosene like this. Let go ply soem videogames.
I tihnk dat tihs post dindt maek muhc sesne
david_1475 is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 01:39 AM   #57 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by david_1475
I tihnk dat tihs post dindt maek muhc sesne


Ok guys. I just understood something. This is just like a freaky revelation, lol. Its late here and I don't want to type up another long-*** reply but; The processor that the PS3 will use (Cell processor) will not be 800x more powerful than my PC. It will be 40x more powerful. I'll explain tomorrow, and if you PM me, I'll explain sooner. But I apologize for making you guys think that it would be 800x more powerful than my PC.

I'm not giving up though, hell no. The consoles will still own the PCs. Question now is; will PC tech advance fast enough that in 3 years time, systems will be 40x faster? I doubt it. Moore's law states; "The power of computer processors doubled in performance ever 18 months." Will the tech be 40x faster by the time the PS3 is ending its life? I don't think so. Maybe it'll be 8x faster, 16x max. But 40x? No. Or could it be that the PS3 last much longer than the PS2?

Again, I'll explain my change of heart tomorrow.

PS3 > PC.

Good Night and Good Luck.
Flanker is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 08:36 AM   #58 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Spartan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 814
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flanker


Ok guys. I just understood something. This is just like a freaky revelation, lol. Its late here and I don't want to type up another long-*** reply but; The processor that the PS3 will use (Cell processor) will not be 800x more powerful than my PC. It will be 40x more powerful. I'll explain tomorrow, and if you PM me, I'll explain sooner. But I apologize for making you guys think that it would be 800x more powerful than my PC.

I'm not giving up though, hell no. The consoles will still own the PCs. Question now is; will PC tech advance fast enough that in 3 years time, systems will be 40x faster? I doubt it. Moore's law states; "The power of computer processors doubled in performance ever 18 months." Will the tech be 40x faster by the time the PS3 is ending its life? I don't think so. Maybe it'll be 8x faster, 16x max. But 40x? No. Or could it be that the PS3 last much longer than the PS2?

Again, I'll explain my change of heart tomorrow.

PS3 > PC.

Good Night and Good Luck.
wtf? the PC will always be greater than a console, and the PS3?! have u looked at the game lineup for the PS3, it SUX cept 4 maybe 1 or 2 titles AND u cant have any mods, so i dont kno wut ur smoking

and do u realize that the cell processor can be used in computers?? companies r gonna do that as soon as the PS3 is launched, so yeah, i DO see the PC being 40x faster by the end of the PS3 life, which willl be short and miserable unlike the PC

long live the PC!!!!
Spartan is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 10:43 AM   #59 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker
Default

My God...so many uneducated responses. You just came into this thread didn't you? Learn to read something besides the last post dude. And have YOU seen the lineup for the PS3 games? NO. Because the PS3 is still 7-8 months away!

Freakin noobs...And DO YOU realize that the Cell processor CANNOT be used in computers? Its a media processor, not the typical Athlon 64 or Pentium 4. I doubt if I tried to explain this, anyone would understand, but the Cell proecssor CANNOT be used it PCs. If it was, it'd be like the Sony/IBM/Toshiba version of a Mac.
Flanker is offline  
Old 10-30-2005, 10:59 AM   #60 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 59
Send a message via AIM to TSHF Send a message via Yahoo to TSHF
Default

I'm still getting a PS3 and PSP.

Bottom line is consoles are designed to be better in the long-run and that is why you have the high numbers. The games initially aren't designed to use the maximum power of the system. PCs are better for now rather than later, and that is why sometimes PCs need more upgrading.

Suppose in a five year span, you upgrad your gfx three times which is how long a console usually lasts. You also get the middle-high gaming card which average pc gamers get which is what $125 for the 6600GT or call it $140. You're still paying $420 and that is what you would pay for a console at its start, the PS3 is $500+ so that is how i think of pc being cheaper. Secondly, the graphics cards sometimes last you even longer where you may only upgrade twice in a 5-year span.
__________________

__________________
Sig removed due to size. Please read the rules before adding your compliant sig. SigSanta
TSHF is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.