# PS3 Graphics capability more powerful than high end PC video cards?



## Charper2013 (Feb 15, 2010)

http://gamer.blorge.com/2010/01/05/ps3-smoothing-beyond-that-of-high-end-pc-graphics-card/

Good read.


----------



## pantherx12 (Feb 15, 2010)

"PS3 AA capability more powerful than high end PC video cards?"

Fixed!


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 15, 2010)

Although like they said most developers aren't even attempting this kind of stuff. I have compared visually my PS3 to my computer.
It was just quite recently Dirt 2 vs Dirt 2.
While there wasn't  a huge difference there was a difference. IMO computer was much cleaner looking and ran much smother. As far as AA I had AA turned up to the max on my Computer.....that is when it really took of in visual comparison!

That is just my opinion ..... there is nothing scientific behind it..... it's just what I noticed..... although.... it's good to hear that my PS3 has room to grow and it might be valid for a couple more years.
But if the PS3 is not used to it's capabilities imagine what PS4 will be like


----------



## Charper2013 (Feb 15, 2010)

pantherx12 said:


> "PS3 AA capability more powerful than high end PC video cards?"
> 
> Fixed!



The GPU in the PS3 has less post-processing capability than high-end PC video cards, but it doesn't need the video card to do things like anti-aliasing and smoothing because the SPUs are designed to do those computations, and the 7 SPUs in the Cell can do more post-processing than the hardware in a PC graphics card.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

Interesting.  Its strange, because I still find the 360's graphics to be nicer than the PS3's (as I own both).  We all know that the generation of GPU that the consoles GPU's are based on is better in the 360, but if the developers are now getting to grips with the CELL, maybe the PS3 will start to outperform the 360.


----------



## Charper2013 (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Interesting.  Its strange, because I still find the 360's graphics to be nicer than the PS3's (I own both)  We all know that the generation of GPU that the consoles GPU's are based on is better in the 360, but if the developers are now getting to grips with the CELL, maybe the PS3 will start to outperform the 360.



Must RESIST starting PS3vs360 war. PS3 OWNS. Sorry couldnt hold back.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

Charper2013 said:


> Must RESIST starting PS3vs360 war. PS3 OWNS. Sorry couldnt hold back.



Nah m8, your not starting anything, each to their own I say   Both consoles have pros and cons, like anythng in life.


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 15, 2010)

Here is a link (that is in another language  )  that compares a few games between Xbox 360 and PS3. Just to take a look.....

http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=13209


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 15, 2010)

if they spent half that much on PC development, the graphics would be out of this world instead of simple ports like GTA4, lets see a PS3 try crysis on for size


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> We all know that the generation of GPU that the consoles GPU's are based on is better in the 360, but if the developers are now getting to grips with the CELL, maybe the PS3 will start to outperform the 360.



Its a pity it wont feature in the next PS. Too costly and complicated to code, they say.


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 15, 2010)

> if they spent half that much on PC development, the graphics would be out of this world instead of simple ports like GTA4, lets see a PS3 try crysis on for size



+1


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

assaulter_99 said:


> Its a pity it wont feature in the next PS. Too costly and complicated to code, they say.



SONY have never wanted to help the developers anyway


----------



## Charper2013 (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Nah m8, your not starting anything, each to their own I say   Both consoles have pros and cons, like anythng in life.



I have to say I like the 360 better for a few reasons

A: Cheaper
B: I like Xbox Live community better
C: Looks cooler IMO

But the failure rate is too high for me to ever consider getting one. I ordered me a 120gb PS3 yesterday and I am eagerly waiting the arrival. I have bought the Sony Official Bluetooth Headset, Little Big Planet, MW2, HDMI cable, Travel Case, and some FPS freek joystick addons. I cant wait till it comes.


----------



## KainXS (Feb 15, 2010)

what a load of bull, mostly all PS3 and 360 games render at such low resolutions, 1280x720 and lower most times, that you don't need much power to run those games at those resolutions, if you cranked up a average PS3 or 360 game to average PC res which is 1680x1050 now and higher you would watch the fps die ontop of bad fps on some titles already, its really ridiculous. It all comes down to money, if you spend more to optimize games on consoles VS PC then you can make more money for obvious reasons, I don't even think we have seen the real capability of even last gen video cards since most games now are ports from consoles and made to run on consoles.

The consoles are almost equal in power though at the end of the day, its a flamebait article.


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 15, 2010)

Well I believe one usually looks a little better than the other. (IMO computer) but developers don't want to spend time making a million different versions of the game so they are most of the time fairly comparable.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> SONY have never wanted to help the developers anyway



 Sony seemed more interested in winning the HD war than supporting its titles. Thats why for me Sony failed. If only they had taken some stuff off, they could really compete more, that box has too much stuff inside that's never even used to its full potential. Now compare that to the 360, which is cheaper to manufacture etc. They should have invested more in games.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

Charper2013 said:


> I have to say I like the 360 better for a few reasons
> 
> A: Cheaper
> B: I like Xbox Live community better
> ...



Failure rate is not a problem with the 360 anymore, since they released the Jasper models 

Im sure you will be pleased with your PS3, they are good machines.

XBOX LIVE is far superior to PSN, but PSN is getting better.....they just need to sort the chat side of things out.

My PS3 is mainly used for movies (BD, AVI, XvidHD) and PS3 exclusives, everything else is played on my 360.


----------



## TVman (Feb 15, 2010)

Charper2013 said:


> Must RESIST starting PS3vs360 war. PS3 OWNS. Sorry couldnt hold back.



LOL well i despise ALL consoles(lets face it!, they are just communistic computers )BUT if i had to choose i would go with the PS3


 PC>consoles end of discussion


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

TVman said:


> LOL well i despise ALL consoles(lets face it!, they are just communistic computers )BUT if i had to choose i would go with the PS3
> 
> 
> PC>consoles end of discussion



For strictly gaming, a games console will NEVER compare to an high-end gaming PC.  I prefer console gaming just because its quick, simple and has a bigger library of games to choose from.


----------



## shevanel (Feb 15, 2010)

my buddy plays a 360 on a 32" 720p lcd and honestly it looks like shit.

the game i last saw him play was MW2 and it was some ugly.

was it because of the res of his tv?


----------



## KainXS (Feb 15, 2010)

shevanel said:


> my buddy plays a 360 on a 32" 720p lcd and honestly it looks like shit.
> 
> the game i last saw him play was MW2 and it was some ugly.
> 
> was it because of the res of his tv?



wanna know why,

modern warfare 2 on 360 and ps3 are rendered by both consoles at 1024x600 meaning the game is upscaled to 720p on a 720p tv and if you have a tv which dosen't upscale well it will look like shit, and even if you had a good one it would still be noticeable, I haven't even tried to play that game at 1080p yet though. . . . . but I know on my 360 the game plays choppy at times. even at 1024x600.


----------



## TVman (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> For strictly gaming, a games console will NEVER compare to an high-end gaming PC.  I prefer console gaming just because its quick, simple and has a bigger library of games to choose from.



yes you are absolutly right pc just cant compete with the simplsity of consoles i mean on consoles you just but the disk in and press play and on a computer you have to insert the disk then install the game and start the game.i get that its just to confusing for console gamers.the second thing is the comunity and lets face it 12 yo calling you by rassist names and threten to rape your mom and then come to your house and kill you AND THEN teabag you!!! console comunity wins hands down and im sure all of us "NUB"pc gamers agree with me

ANYWAY lets get back to the ps3 thing we were talking about


----------



## shevanel (Feb 15, 2010)

yeah the guy i was talking about would never know how to patch a game or even change settings.. he could probably learn but he is a genuine console guy.. he's like 20 years old but has the PC knowledge of a 72 year old lady


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

^^^ I mean, that's why he's a console guy! Rofl


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

TVman said:


> yes you are absolutly right pc just cant compete with the simplsity of consoles i mean on consoles you just but the disk in and press play and on a computer you have to insert the disk then install the game and start the game.i get that its just to confusing for console gamers.the second thing is the comunity and lets face it 12 yo calling you by rassist names and threten to rape your mom and then come to your house and kill you AND THEN teabag you!!! console comunity wins hands down and im sure all of us "NUB"pc gamers agree with me
> 
> ANYWAY lets get back to the ps3 thing we were talking about



Are you retarded or something?  Of course a console is far simpler to use.  You can just pop the disc in and hit start.  With a PC you have to have the correct drivers etc and if your rig isnt up to scratch, the game runs like shite!

Ive done the whole PC gaming thing and it was/is great.  But, I got fed up with all the upgrading BS.

You dont like console, big f*cking deal, but some do, so respect their views like they may do yours!



shevanel said:


> my buddy plays a 360 on a 32" 720p lcd and honestly it looks like shit.
> 
> the game i last saw him play was MW2 and it was some ugly.
> 
> was it because of the res of his tv?



Really, I run MW2 on my 42" 1080p LCD TV using my 360 (and PS3) and both look really nice.......but tbh, its been a while since Ive played games on a good gaming PC.....so I dont have anything to compare it to lol


----------



## Charper2013 (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Are you retarded or something?  Of course a console is far simpler to use.  You can just pop the disc in and hit start.  With a PC you have to have the correct drivers etc and if your rig isnt up to scratch, the game runs like shite!
> 
> Ive done the whole PC gaming thing and it was/is great.  But, I got fed up with all the upgrading BS.
> 
> You dont like console, big f*cking deal, but some do, so respect their views like they may do yours!



You make a very good point.


----------



## digibucc (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Interesting.  Its strange, because I still find the 360's graphics to be nicer than the PS3's (as I own both)  ... but if the developers are now getting to grips with the CELL, maybe the PS3 will start to outperform the 360.



not really strange at all - you hinted the answer yourself.  the only reason any 360 games look any better than any ps3 games , is if the devs don't want to bother with coding for cell.  they are making games with a piece of hardware that wasn't even supposed to be in the ps3 , becasue it's "too hard" for them to code the cell processor.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Ive done the whole PC gaming thing and it was/is great.  But, I got fed up with all the upgrading BS.
> 
> You dont like console, big f*cking deal, but some do, so respect their views like they may do yours!



Don't want to be a d*ck but upgrading ain't a big deal if you can settle for mid range gaming. Any system, if you take the right decisions, can handle up for a couple of years. I know a fair amount of gamers that are still gaming with a 8800 (even I, with a 9800) and it still can handle games well. By the time the 8800 will bite the dust with games, another console will be on its way. So your argument is skewed. You don't have to rush and buy all the expensive stuff imho. But like you said, everybody is entitled to their own opinions.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> not really strange at all - you hinted the answer yourself.  the only reason any 360 games look any better than any ps3 games , is if the devs don't want to bother with coding for cell.  they are making games with a piece of hardware that wasn't even supposed to be in the ps3 , becasue it's "too hard" for them to code the cell processor.



Fucked up situation really.  I personally, favouring the 360, would LOVE to see the devs unlock the full potential of the PS3's CELL.

But then again, the devs still reckon that the 360's potential hasnt been maxxed out yet.....but like most things, its probably BS


----------



## MRCL (Feb 15, 2010)

20mmrain said:


> Here is a link (that is in another language  )  that compares a few games between Xbox 360 and PS3. Just to take a look.....
> 
> http://www.gamestar.de/index.cfm?pid=1589&pk=13209



That "other language" is German  The video comparing Dirt2 on PC and XBox 360 mainly says that the PC features much better lighting. At night races, on the PC, every light source throws its light physically correct on the scenery, which itself reflects correct etc. In the 360 version, most of the light sources are just bright dots. Also, thanks to DX11, the PC version has more depth effect.

In the video MW2 PC vs. Console:
PS3 and 360 version are pretty similar; the 360 has a tad bit better lighting.
But they both are outperformed by the PC easily.


----------



## TVman (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Are you retarded or something?  Of course a console is far simpler to use.  You can just pop the disc in and hit start.  With a PC you have to have the correct drivers etc and if your rig isnt up to scratch, the game runs like shite!
> 
> Ive done the whole PC gaming thing and it was/is great.  But, I got fed up with all the upgrading BS.
> 
> ...



hey there will be no insulting here in TPU:shadedshu if you cant seem to understand simpel sarcasm then that is not a green light for insulting:shadedshu


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

assaulter_99 said:


> Don't want to be a d*ck but upgrading ain't a big deal if you can settle for mid range gaming. Any system, if you take the right decisions, can handle up for a couple of years. I know a fair amount of gamers that are still gaming with a 8800 (even I, with a 9800) and it still can handle games well. By the time the 8800 will bite the dust with games, another console will be on its way. So your argument is skewed. You don't have to rush and buy all the expensive stuff imho. But like you said, everybody is entitled to their own opinions.



I totally agree.  But Im a sucker and always wanted to me able to MAX every game out lol.....thats why Crysis killed PC gaming for me 

I just think that consoles are the smart choice for those guys that cant build/upgrade a PC themselves.....because a console is a no-brainer really lol



TVman said:


> hey there will be no insulting here in TPU:shadedshu if you cant seem to understand simpel sarcasm then that is not a green light for insulting:shadedshu



Sorry dude, I thought you were having a pop at me   Reading through your post I can see your joking....my bad!


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Feb 15, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Are you retarded or something?  (...)



Here's some education: 


> To call something or someone "stupid" is pretty much okay because "stupid" usually defines a controlled word choice, decision or action. Retarded shouldn't be used like the word stupid because "retarded" in it's proper use means mentally challenged. That's when someone is born incapable of understanding like the "rest of us". You should refrain from calling anyone "retarded", especially in public because many people know or take care of someone who didn't choose to be mentally challenged.





Regarding the article, I call it a bunch of BS. We'd figure all the "OMFG Cell is a Supercomputer" rumours would have died by now..
I've seen Uncharted 2 in a 1080p LCD and it's *not* smoothier than any game at 4xSSAA I can have with my HD5870.
Nonetheless, although console lovers may say it's the best looking game ever (it's not, it's well under the 2.5-year-old Crysis) the game is still crippled when it comes to geometry, texture resolution and lighting quality.
Everyone keeps mentioning the train level as a benchmark for graphics quality but I say "meh.. 1st Crysis level on enthusiast beats this for 5 years".


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Feb 15, 2010)

The reason why people like consoles, is the gaming aspect, there is no need of learning about a whole computers inner workings and haveing to potentually overclock the computer that you would be barly learning to build, then realize that final cost are going to soar to 500-1000 dollars, then in the end the PC dosnt have all the console games, and support.


So people buy the consoles for, easy, quick, buitifal gaming, that flooded with all there freinds on the block, and you dont have to turn into a rocket engineer to get to your gaming 50-32" plasma experience.


I decided to do the PC gaming build instead of another 360 because it was a new hobby for me, and back then when there were 8000 series cards and the best looking game in the world was crysis, i wanted to play that game and be that cool gamer.... 

Now there isnt really any BETTER LOOKING games coming out other in dx11 games starting to arrise and just for note**

Anybody wanting to trade there dx11 card or cards for my GTX 260's could pm me man .


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

ToTTenTranz said:


> Here's some education:



I did mean 'stupid', not as in proper mental retardation.  But I shouldnt have said it tbh.


----------



## digibucc (Feb 15, 2010)

so the word "retarded" is basically never ever to be used, under any circumstances?... it's obviously wrong and derogatory to call anyone, mentally challenged or not, a "retard".

but the word can't be associated to anything else, either?  I just think it is odd that there are constructed words... things that we made up that we are not allowed to utter, because they upset some people.

I have all the respect in the world for people who take care of the mentally challenged, and have them in their family as I do.  But tbh, to disallow the use of the word entirely because it offends some people, while at the same time saying "stupid" is ok.. (there are people who are stupid, and can't help it) is retarded.

sorry for off-topic, this seriously gets to me though.


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 15, 2010)

Ohh sure can kick the ass of a 5970 yeah yeah ! Ati graphics card owners humiliated ...

... stop please to read spammers


----------



## kurosagi01 (Feb 15, 2010)

You know i find the whole upgrading thing sucks aswell but here i am with a 2 year old CPU and motherboard still kicking in games at high settings just by changing graphics card every year or 2 and i still find every game running perfectly.

is it just me or 360 and PS3 don't use V-sync for their games?? i saw a lot of image tearing or something on Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 on the PS3 and rainbow six vegas on the 360.
I mean come on if the games are capped at 30 FPS or something like that they should at least put V-sync on the console so theres no image tearing or something on the games.


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 15, 2010)

kurosagi01 said:


> You know i find the whole upgrading thing sucks aswell but here i am with a 2 year old CPU and motherboard still kicking in games at high settings just by changing graphics card every year or 2 and i still find every game running perfectly.
> 
> is it just me or 360 and PS3 don't use V-sync for their games?? i saw a lot of image tearing or something on Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 on the PS3 and rainbow six vegas on the 360.
> I mean come on if the games are capped at 30 FPS or something like that they should at least put V-sync on the console so theres no image tearing or something on the games.



Well then I wonder why ATI and Nvidia will squeeze their balls to do blistering performance graphics cards and then all the games are developed with great disappointment only for the filthy consoles ???? WHY ???? 

Alan wake cancelled and who knows how many other beautiful games follow...


----------



## johnnyfiive (Feb 15, 2010)

20mmrain said:


> Although like they said most developers aren't even attempting this kind of stuff. I have compared visually my PS3 to my computer.
> It was just quite recently Dirt 2 vs Dirt 2.
> While there wasn't  a huge difference there was a difference. IMO computer was much cleaner looking and ran much smother. As far as AA I had AA turned up to the max on my Computer.....that is when it really took of in visual comparison!
> 
> ...



Just so I'm sure on this, you ran Dirt 2 on the PS3 at 1080p right? I just recently got a 52" Sharp Aquos 120Hz LED TV and the value of my PS3 has improved about 200% lol. Blu-Rays look ridiculous, games looks fantastic, every looks absolutely awesome!


----------



## Dark_Webster (Feb 15, 2010)

Simple.

Do a game for the PS3's RSX with much work. It results on great graphics.

Do a game only for the ATi's RV870 core with much work. It results on OMGWTFBBQ graphics.

Consoles only have one config, PC's have billions of them.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> so the word "retarded" is basically never ever to be used, under any circumstances?... it's obviously wrong and derogatory to call anyone, mentally challenged or not, a "retard".
> 
> but the word can't be associated to anything else, either?  I just think it is odd that there are constructed words... things that we made up that we are not allowed to utter, because they upset some people.
> 
> ...



The word retard can be used to define someone that has an IQ score under 70.....I didnt mean to say it in a way that would mock people with real retardation (which is very sad)


----------



## Solaris17 (Feb 15, 2010)

ToTTenTranz said:


> Here's some education:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



they settled it before this post. look 2 posts up. a day late a dollar short and totally unnecessary. 



digibucc said:


> so the word "retarded" is basically never ever to be used, under any circumstances?... it's obviously wrong and derogatory to call anyone, mentally challenged or not, a "retard".
> 
> but the word can't be associated to anything else, either?  I just think it is odd that there are constructed words... things that we made up that we are not allowed to utter, because they upset some people.
> 
> ...



actually interesting fact. Did you know that the word retard is still an official used medical term?


----------



## KainXS (Feb 15, 2010)

kurosagi01 said:


> You know i find the whole upgrading thing sucks aswell but here i am with a 2 year old CPU and motherboard still kicking in games at high settings just by changing graphics card every year or 2 and i still find every game running perfectly.
> 
> is it just me or 360 and PS3 don't use V-sync for their games?? i saw a lot of image tearing or something on Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 on the PS3 and rainbow six vegas on the 360.
> I mean come on if the games are capped at 30 FPS or something like that they should at least put V-sync on the console so theres no image tearing or something on the games.



I gotta agree with you, if you know what your doing then you can game on 1 rig for a long time, I have been using my budget pc whenever my main pc was down, its an old GS oced and a E2140 oced and at 1680x1050 its been able to max every game I have thrown at it except crysis and a few others even if some only do get like 38fps in a few titles.

It comes down to how simple you want it I guess, and consoles will always be simpler than pc's


----------



## kurosagi01 (Feb 15, 2010)

Has anyone else apart from animalpak read what i said??

What makes the PS3 and 360 graphics so "fantastic" if it can't even use V-sync to avoid image tearing?? the games are capped at a specific FPS so why not use V-sync to make the graphics even more better since not lot of graphics card on PC that can actually use V-sync and keep a steady FPS.


----------



## theonedub (Feb 15, 2010)

KainXS said:


> wanna know why,
> 
> modern warfare 2 on 360 and ps3 are rendered by both consoles at 1024x600 meaning the game is upscaled to 720p on a 720p tv and *if you have a tv which dosen't upscale well it will look like shit*, and even if you had a good one it would still be noticeable, I haven't even tried to play that game at 1080p yet though. . . . . but I know on my 360 the game plays choppy at times. even at 1024x600.



This is all sorts of wrong. The consoles do the scaling and will output a 720p, 1080i, 1080P picture depending on the settings. The TV is not responsible for upscaling the picture from the rendering resolution (I believe the PS3 does it in software, the 360 has a dedicated scaler chip).


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Feb 15, 2010)

For what i see it matters in tast.

The actual resolution consoles play there games at very very low resolution, and the Frames per seconds on the low resolution games can hit below 30 sometimes in some titles. Some people dont mind having low FPS in there console games and i know everybody in my school(neighborhood) dosnt relize the full smoothness of 100+ fps in a game like us PC gamers do, or if there getting low frames or not.


If i remember right a 360 plays there titles at 760 X 4## or something of that sort and the ps3 does about the same to. Its amazing how a low resolution video game from a 360 or ps3 could look so smooth on a TV.

But play a game over 100 or at 80-100 fps makes the particals razor smooth, you cant notice any framing, and for the fps shooter fanatic, its great if you make tight turns to do headshots. 

When it comes to gaming in a fps shooter mouses win over controllers, and ive had the argument with 10 prestiged cod4 mw2 veterns over and over, but i know in the end, my skills would litteraly flat out confuse someone in seconds. Im pretty good with my hand to mouse cordination if you know what i mean .


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 15, 2010)

I don't like consoles. It slows down the development on the visual front, giving us only shitty looking games with low optimisation levels because it is easy to earn money through consoles.


----------



## KainXS (Feb 15, 2010)

theonedub said:


> This is all sorts of wrong. The consoles do the scaling and will output a 720p, 1080i, 1080P picture depending on the settings. The TV is not responsible for upscaling the picture from the rendering resolution (I believe the PS3 does it in software, the 360 has a dedicated scaler chip).



your right lol the 360 upscales rendered video in by the xenos itself

the ps3 i don't know about.


----------



## ToTTenTranz (Feb 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> so the word "retarded" is basically never ever to be used, under any circumstances?... it's obviously wrong and derogatory to call anyone, mentally challenged or not, a "retard".
> 
> but the word can't be associated to anything else, either?  I just think it is odd that there are constructed words... things that we made up that we are not allowed to utter, because they upset some people.
> 
> ...



"Mentally Retarded" is the medical term, "Mentally Challenged" is not.
Calling someone "stupid" means he was distracted, or wasn't thinking right, or just wasn't thinking the way you wanted to. 
Being stupid is temporary, it's a "choice". Generally speaking, the person stops being stupid if she corrects her mistakes.

Being retarded isn't a choice, it's a medical condition, usually a limitation without a cure.
Therefore, it's wrong to insult someone as being retarded, the same way no one ever insults a paraplaegic for not being able to walk.

The problem is that someone somewhere started to use "retarded" as "stupid", and other ignorant people started doing the same. 

It's not that you should stop using retarded to call someone stupid, it's just that no one should have ever started doing that. Therefore, it should be corrected.
Don't see it as social censorship but rather as social development.




johnnyfiive said:


> Just so I'm sure on this, you ran Dirt 2 on the PS3 at 1080p right? I just recently got a 52" Sharp Aquos 120Hz LED TV and the value of my PS3 has improved about 200% lol. Blu-Rays look ridiculous, games looks fantastic, every looks absolutely awesome!



Almost all 1080p supported games are actually rendered at 720p and then upscaled through post-processing.
If people sit 20 feet away from the TV, they won't notice it. But if you play the same game in a 24" LCD monitor 2 feet away from it, there's a huge difference between upscaled 720p and actual 1080p (which all PC games can do, of course).





Solaris17 said:


> they settled it before this post. look 2 posts up. a day late a dollar short and totally unnecessary.


I was referring to the erroneous use of the word "retarded". I never had no interest at all in their quarrel. Had you read my post, you'd understand it.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 15, 2010)

assaulter_99 said:


> Sony seemed more interested in winning the HD war than supporting its titles. Thats why for me Sony failed. If only they had taken some stuff off, they could really compete more, that box has too much stuff inside that's never even used to its full potential. Now compare that to the 360, which is cheaper to manufacture etc. They should have invested more in games.



sony doesnt care about making money on the ps3. they used it as a tool to push blu-ray where the REAL money is.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 15, 2010)

Animalpak said:


> Well then I wonder why ATI and Nvidia will squeeze their balls to do blistering performance graphics cards and then all the games are developed with great disappointment only for the filthy consoles ???? WHY ????
> 
> Alan wake cancelled and who knows how many other beautiful games follow...



Because, in the end... cell cant keep up with modern GFX cards - sure, the SP's can render AA smoother than 16X - but can they tesselate?  do they have the next generation features?  3d Glasses coming to PS3... and nvidia made the gfx chip. HMMM...

I see one of two things happeneing 1) sony will design a console that is BETTER than PC - can use controls other than analog sticks, and has no lag and better graphics, and boom... PC is out.

or 2) PC and consoles will converge into a single development platform, and consoles will be nothing but specially purposed PC's for gaming.  I can see this happening with microsoft and not so much sony.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> sony doesnt care about making money on the ps3. they used it as a tool to push blu-ray where the REAL money is.



Agreed.  Bluray won the High Def media war (mainly because MS didnt make HD-DVD standard in the 360) and thats all that matters to them (SONY)


----------



## theonedub (Feb 15, 2010)

KainXS said:


> your right lol the 360 upscales rendered video in by the xenos itself
> 
> the ps3 i don't know about.



Its the same way for the PS3, you don't ever see your TV signal/source information say 1024x600 when you boot up MW2 or any other game for that matter, do you? Of course not. Its all done by the console, the only resolution a console will output are 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i, 1080P- thats it.

As far as scaling on a TV- if you have the output set to 720P because thats the supported res of the game, but you have a 1080P set, the TV will be responsible for scaling the 720P image to the 1080P screen res. Again though, its scaling from the output resolution of the console, not the rendered res. 

Thats all.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 15, 2010)

In regards to the first few posts comparing games from 360 and PC to PS3. 

Your missing the point. Those games undoubtedly will look slightly better because they were coded to use the GPU more so.

You have to look at games like Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, Flower and GOD of War III and compare but you won't have a anything really smiler to compare to so its much harder to make a comparison.


----------



## KainXS (Feb 15, 2010)

I never thought of that onedub all I remember is simply picking 720p or 1080p in my 360's options



> However, in Uncharted 2, the game utilizes 100 percent of the SPUs and very little of the GPU.



One thing I would like to know more about is how they say in uncharted 2 they use almost entirely the cpu and almost none of the gpu, as I remember trying to run games on cpu back in the day it was almost entirely like cutting performance by a factor of like at least 10 . . .  and even now it still happens like every time even compared to really old gpu's, can someone explain this to me . . . . . could the cell be that powerful, I don't get it.

If the cell can act as a better gpu then I don't see why sony didn't realize this in the first place, all I can think of is they wanted to make it easier for developers right.

unless the games were build more on effects that utilize more cpu power that is.

anyone also know what resolution uncharted 2 is natively


also, the frame buffer of the cpu and gpu are linked in the ps3 right.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 15, 2010)

KainXS said:


> I never thought of that onedub all I remember is simply picking 720p or 1080p in my 360's options
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://g4tv.com/videos/41532/Uncharted-2-Tech-Specs/

You see at least when a game is exclusive on a ps3 you know its exclusive cause it just can't be done on anything but the PS3. Unlike Halo 3 which Microsoft just keeps on 360 for marketing reasons. Just one of many examples of BS exclusives.


----------



## KainXS (Feb 15, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> http://g4tv.com/videos/41532/Uncharted-2-Tech-Specs/
> 
> You see at least when a game is exclusive on a ps3 you know its exclusive cause it just can't be done on anything but the PS3. Unlike Halo 3 which Microsoft just keeps on 360 for marketing reasons. Just one of many examples of BS exclusives.



i see what your talking about, makes me kinda change my mind on  the ps3 becoming old by 2012 though, when both systems have been fully hacked it would be nice to see a homebrew app that benchmarks both of them.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 15, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> http://g4tv.com/videos/41532/Uncharted-2-Tech-Specs/
> 
> You see at least when a game is exclusive on a ps3 you know its exclusive cause it just can't be done on anything but the PS3. Unlike Halo 3 which Microsoft just keeps on 360 for marketing reasons. Just one of many examples of BS exclusives.



so true... standards will always  proprietary.

PPL say how many more games there are on the ps3 or how it can do more than 16x aa... but how many of those games actually do that ? less than a handful... whereas the rest of them look like sh*t compared to what they could because theyre just ports from another console.

My biggest gripe with consoles is that they are often the limiting factor in PC games... devs make a game for a platform that utilizes 50% of the features PC offers, and then just offer slightly sharper textures and higher rez and call it a day.

and you "LEAVE BRI... err... CONSOLES ALONE!!! ALL YOU DO IS TAKE..."  peeps dont get why PC gamers dislike consoles.  Look at crysis, and crysis II.  :/


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 15, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> so true... standards will always  proprietary.
> 
> PPL say how many more games there are on the ps3 or how it can do more than 16x aa... but how many of those games actually do that ? less than a handful... whereas the rest of them look like sh*t compared to what they could because theyre just ports from another console.
> 
> ...



Well Cry Engine 3 is designed as a "No Port" Engine. Meaning when they code the game one time its coded for PC PS3 and Xbox all at the same time. This is how all game engines should be, then they can continue optimizing it and everyone gets a good game for each console/PC. This is probably the first of many future game engine that will start doing this. 

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2010/02/14/crysis-2-there-is-no-port/


----------



## kurosagi01 (Feb 15, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> so true... standards will always  proprietary.
> 
> PPL say how many more games there are on the ps3 or how it can do more than 16x aa... but how many of those games actually do that ? less than a handful... whereas the rest of them look like sh*t compared to what they could because theyre just ports from another console.
> 
> ...



lol ps3 can do 16x AA?? now thats load of bs in my opinion i mean if the ps3 and 360 has so much better graphics why doesn't it use V-sync...surely if its so much better than PC is should be able to do it easily but no you see lot of image tear in games yeah i have seen lots of lines around the screen because of image tear.


----------



## digibucc (Feb 15, 2010)

kurosagi01 said:


> lol ps3 can do 16x AA?? now thats load of bs in my opinion i mean if the ps3 and 360 has so much better graphics why doesn't it use V-sync...surely if its so much better than PC is should be able to do it easily but no you see lot of image tear in games yeah i have seen lots of lines around the screen because of image tear.



if you had read the article, it clearly states that devs for ps3 have been using a gpu that shouldn't have even been in the system. they are not taking advantage of the capabilities it(PS3, it's SPUs) offers, is why quality is not to the level it COULD BE.


----------



## vbx (Feb 15, 2010)

Gaming computer 1k plus

PS3 $300

decent computer to do other stuff: $500-700

PS3 and a decent computer for the win.  Plus do you want people going on your computer to play games?  

I rather have a separate console for gaming.  

Plus I rather play games on a big screen than on a 19" monitor.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> Gaming computer 1k plus
> 
> PS3 $300
> 
> ...



Are you seriously stating that you need $1000 to have a gaming rig? Give me that and I'll have 2 - 3 systems, so I can have a personal gaming rig, another for the family. Plus you can always hook you pc to a big screen, not just a console, heck even mobile phones can  I have nothing against console gaming but I hate when people (consolites mainly) say you need tons of cash to game on your pc.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> Gaming computer 1k plus
> 
> PS3 $300
> 
> ...



Sure if you're a casual gamer... that makes sense.

But if you want the best possible gaming experience - then PC all the way.  There are people that buy $4000 gaming PC's for that experience.  

And if you want to play on a bigger screen then you should hook your PC up to a bigger screen .

I have a gaming rig and a laptop for that same reason.  One rig is for fun and backing up the laptop... and the laptop is for work.  But pure gaming is PC.  I have the console for snowboarding/skating games and rockband.  Thats about it.


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 15, 2010)

problem is with a PS3 or any console is that at the end of the day you are still gonna need a PC to do the basic email and shit, so you might as well save some cash and space and build/buy a decent PC.

nuff sed


----------



## digibucc (Feb 15, 2010)

Bo$$ said:


> problem is with a PS3 or any console is that at the end of the day you are still gonna need a PC to do the basic email and shit, so you might as well save some cash and space and build/buy a decent PC.
> 
> nuff sed



not really... PS3 has a web browser.  the majority of casual pc users can check their sites, check their mail, use online office suites, etc.  they can do everything they need on a ps3.

I think as someone else said, the answer is for PCs and consoles to become more of the same thing (as they already technically are).  It's just a matter of the companies LOOKING AT THEM that way.


----------



## vbx (Feb 15, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> Sure if you're a casual gamer... that makes sense.
> 
> But if you want the best possible gaming experience - then PC all the way.  There are people that buy $4000 gaming PC's for that experience.
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not the type that likes to move crap around.  I have a laptop for that.  Seems to be a hassle to move crap back and forth. But that's just me.

I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.

Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.  

Greatest gaming experience is with a PC? That's debatable.  My fondest memory of playing games was playing Super Mario on the Nintendo with a friend. Or duck hunt.  And the graphics sucked. lol.

Games nowadays focus way too much on 3d and little game play.  I have a Wii too, and rather play new super mario or mario kart than most games that are out.  I'm just not a hardcore gamer I guess.


----------



## vbx (Feb 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> not really... PS3 has a web browser.  the majority of casual pc users can check their sites, check their mail, use online office suites, etc.  they can do everything they need on a ps3.
> 
> I think as someone else said, the answer is for PCs and consoles to become more of the same thing (as they already technically are).  It's just a matter of the companies LOOKING AT THEM that way.



1st off all, you can buy a PS3 and a personal computer all for less than 1k..  

Most gaming PC out there are over 1k....

I have a PS3 and a personal computer and even a laptop.  Most people have more than one toys.  

I rather use my pc for internet and a console for gaming.


----------



## Charper2013 (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> Well, I'm not the type that likes to move crap around.  I have a laptop for that.  Seems to be a hassle to move crap back and forth. But that's just me.
> 
> I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.
> 
> ...



This guy makes a awesome point. Who would like to have friend over to watch them play your PC. A nice madden game in the living room sounds like fun.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 15, 2010)

the only reason i own a ps3 is for blu-ray. i bought the ps3 when it costs the same as a blu-ray player so it only made sense from a value point of view.


----------



## Fourstaff (Feb 15, 2010)

Hmmm, I wonder if it is cheaper to own a basic PC and a gaming console or a more powerful PC and no console.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> the only reason i own a ps3 is for blu-ray. i bought the ps3 when it costs the same as a blu-ray player so it only made sense from a value point of view.



It makes sense because you can still play any console exclusives that you like the look of.

Ideal world, we all own great gaming rigs and all consoles


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.
> 
> Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.



I get your point but once again, its skewed. I have pes on my pc, when friends come over, I just hook up my pc with the tv and there we go, in the living room, with hell breaking loose.


----------



## digibucc (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> 1st off all, you can buy a PS3 and a personal computer all for less than 1k..
> 
> Most gaming PC out there are over 1k....
> 
> ...



first of all, I never said you couldn't.  I see no reason why you quoted me and got aggressive, when nothing I said even attempted to rebuke that.

secondly, you can play 90% of games on a sub-$700 pc at at least mid, and mostly high settings. If you want top of the line, you pay for it.  you don't even have that option with a console.  therefore it halts growth in graphic and technology, as it stays stagnant for 3 years with each generation.

and thirdly, I have a PS3, a Wii, 4 high end PCs, 2 laptops, 6 LCDs, ipod touch, blackberry...uh... what was the point of that again? as in, how does it relate to the conversation we were having, other than "people like toys"

what you would rather do has no effect on the capabilities of the machine.  the fact of the matter is, PCs can do more. simple. consoles are simple. simple.  

it depends on the type of person you are, what you will choose.  but, I STILL do not understand why you quoted me, and stated your personal opinions as fact. use your toys the way you do, i'll use them the way i do -but everyone still has the option of using them completely different than either of us!

people use PS3s as super computers, and some people $3,000 pcs they hardly ever use.

what was your point?

AND,


> I mean when I have friends over, it's kind of gay to have them all hang out in my room and play games.
> 
> Better for them to be in the living room, eat and make their mess there.



I have my consoles, along with 2 different pcs in my living room hooked up to my hdtv.  one is my media center, on is my gaming rig.  I can watch a movie on the media center, or the ps3, or even the gaming rig - while playing games on the other.  or movie on one, gaming on one, web on the other.  any number of combinations. and i do this often.

point is, your argument is invalid in that there is no reason you can't game on a pc, in your living room, with 6 friends and @40+ inches.  with better graphics, better sound, jus tplain more possibilities.


----------



## vbx (Feb 15, 2010)

Consoles have exclusive games. The end.


----------



## assaulter_99 (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> Consoles have exclusive games. The end.



This smells like a fanboy statement.  I'm merely trying to prove to you that every systems does have its advantages, like you even stated yourself. But just dont say that the pc can or can't do this based on just these statements (which I proved to you that it can do)


----------



## digibucc (Feb 15, 2010)

vbx said:


> Consoles have exclusive games. The end.



ok now you're starting to troll.  pcs have exclusives , have had them for longer - and it's not just a marketing ploy.  aside from the 4 PS3 games coded on the cell, there is no reason any console game could not be run on a pc. no reason.  there are TONS of reasons pc games can't run on consoles - starting with limited graphics, controls, power, and on.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 15, 2010)

no trolling. i think everyone made their point.


----------



## kurosagi01 (Feb 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> if you had read the article, it clearly states that devs for ps3 have been using a gpu that shouldn't have even been in the system. they are not taking advantage of the capabilities it(PS3, it's SPUs) offers, is why quality is not to the level it COULD BE.



And it applys to the 360 also?? i see similar image tearing on the 360 too so does that mean devs are only using the gpu for the 360 and not the CPU?


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 16, 2010)

kurosagi01 said:


> And it applys to the 360 also?? i see similar image tearing on the 360 too so does that mean devs are only using the gpu for the 360 and not the CPU?



I found out a little trick on how to cut down the 'horizontal tearing' on the 360....TBH, since doing this, I havent seen any tearing:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=114262


----------



## digibucc (Feb 16, 2010)

kurosagi01 said:


> And it applys to the 360 also?? i see similar image tearing on the 360 too so does that mean devs are only using the gpu for the 360 and not the CPU?



yeah... as that's the only thing they can use with the 360 , not so with the ps3.

the statement i was responding to was 





			
				kurosagi01 said:
			
		

> lol ps3 can do 16x AA??



which actually was not what was stated. it's not MSAA,  (or AA) , but a different kind with effects of a quality level BETTER than what we see with 16x ... different technology though so the (##x) number designator doesn't actually fit.

the 360 is technically inferior, and i offer no excuses for it.  the excuse for the ps3 is the devs


----------



## Mussels (Feb 16, 2010)

lame story is lame.

high end PC cards can go well beyond 16xAA...









the whole point of the article seems to be "PS3 has better AA on some titles than the 360*, SO THIS MAKES IT BETTER THAN PC TOO!"

*Saboteur only


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Feb 16, 2010)

I watched my sister playing MW2 on her Xbox 360 on a Samsung 40" HDTV 1080p and it looks fantastic!
Too me it looks the same as playing it on my rig 

I need to pick up Uncharted 2! 
Looks great!


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 16, 2010)

Irish_PXzyan said:


> I watched my sister playing MW2 on her Xbox 360 on a Samsung 40" HDTV 1080p and it looks fantastic!
> Too me it looks the same as playing it on my rig
> 
> I need to pick up Uncharted 2!
> Looks great!



I think MW2 looks good on the 360 (on a 42" LCD @ 1080p)

Im also hoping to pick up Uncharted 2   I loved the first one (if havent played it, get it, now!) and part 2 does look stunning!


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 16, 2010)

So I think that to save the game on pc should be shops or groups of specialized team selling Gaming PC's optimized and ready for use as the console, inviting the customer to a minimum of maintenance updates and drivers and maybe a hardware maintenance/upgrade/service for 2 years.

http://www.digitalstormonline.com/



and reasonable prices also... Forget Alienware .


----------



## digibucc (Feb 16, 2010)

uncharted 2 was more of the same ... which was AWESOME!

i bought them both at the same time, but managed to play the first through before i put the second in. 
the first still stands up well, but the second is MUCH better. everything that made the first one great, amplified  highly recommended.  it seemed a  bit shorter, but it was very intense, and I kinda played it straight through whereas the first i separated by days. also i am sure i will play it through again (which is very rare) . multiplayer looks great too.

too many good things to say. i'll stop now. buy it.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Feb 16, 2010)

20mmrain said:


> Although like they said most developers aren't even attempting this kind of stuff. I have compared visually my PS3 to my computer.
> It was just quite recently Dirt 2 vs Dirt 2.
> While there wasn't  a huge difference there was a difference. IMO computer was much cleaner looking and ran much smother. As far as AA I had AA turned up to the max on my Computer.....that is when it really took of in visual comparison!
> 
> ...



Comparing Dirt 2 on PS3 to PC isn't a fair comparison, what the article is saying is most people are just now leaning off the GPU and more on the CPU, but most games now don't do it, and the ones that do are PS3 exclusives. The reason they are exclusive is because, games that are on console and PC are similar in lots of ways which allows them to port, but to have a game utilizing the Cell processor properly and then utilizing the PC CPU properly, and being the same title, both would pretty much have to be coded from the ground up by themselves without any porting.

So looking at any current game thats on PC and PS3 isn't a good comparison at all, would want to look more to Uncharted 2 or something.



HookeyStreet said:


> Interesting.  Its strange, because I still find the 360's graphics to be nicer than the PS3's (as I own both).  We all know that the generation of GPU that the consoles GPU's are based on is better in the 360, but if the developers are now getting to grips with the CELL, maybe the PS3 will start to outperform the 360.



Exactly what I just said above, but slightly different. 360's have a lot more in common with PC coding it seems. Any game that properly utilizes the cell will not be a game that is offered on the 360, so the comparison will be hard. Games that are offered on both consoles might look a bit better on 360, because they have a bigger audience so they start making the game for 360 and port it and ports always look worse.



Charper2013 said:


> I have to say I like the 360 better for a few reasons
> 
> A: Cheaper
> B: I like Xbox Live community better
> ...



The 360 really isn't that much cheaper now, if your looking at an arcade your looking at a crippled system. For $300 now, around here every single store doesn't have a single PS3 in stock (a friend has been trying to buy one) their price is just so good. I do agree Live is better, you do pay for it, but I wish PSN had a bit more hat options, otherwise it's great. And also you might be the first person I have ever heard say the 360 looks better, Old PS3 and new PS3 are just sexy, I have owned them both, 360's, eh never ever thought they looked good.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 16, 2010)

1Kurgan1: what the article really says, is that the PS3 GPU is so weak, they used the CPU to do some of its work... and it worked well.


----------



## Irish_PXzyan (Feb 16, 2010)

Yea I will pick up uncharted 1 first 
Then go with number 2!

I also want Demon Souls!
That game looks like fun too


----------



## digibucc (Feb 16, 2010)

demon's souls is good as well, by soul-crushingly hard 

simply because if you let your guard down for a second, no joke - it can mean your death in game.  then you start in the spirit world, again, and have to clear an entire spirit kingdom and freaky monster to get back to life.  where you can easily die, again.

still fun.  I just realized after 5 hours or so that it will take FOREVER to beat.  which isn't bad, just what it is.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 16, 2010)

digibucc said:


> demon's souls is good as well, by soul-crushingly hard
> 
> simply because if you let your guard down for a second, no joke - it can mean your death in game.  then you start in the spirit world, again, and have to clear an entire spirit kingdom and freaky monster to get back to life.  where you can easily die, again.
> 
> still fun.  I just realized after 5 hours or so that it will take FOREVER to beat.  which isn't bad, just what it is.



Did you end up finishing it!

PS. My views on the PS3 is that it is a great gaming machine and has alot of potential, end of story!


----------



## digibucc (Feb 16, 2010)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> Did you end up finishing it!
> 
> PS. My views on the PS3 is that it is a great gaming machine and has alot of potential, end of story!



not yet - i will for sure, but BF:BC2 stole me away 

for sure, 2010 is the year of the PS3!


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

the day that i can use a keyboard mouse on a console will be the day when my pc uses onboard video.. cuz ill be gaming on a console most likley


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 16, 2010)

digibucc said:


> not yet - i will for sure, but BF:BC2 stole me away
> 
> for sure, 2010 is the year of the PS3!



Im sure you just said the exact same thing in the PS3 clubhouse???  Deja vu or what


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

[lol] would be sweet if in the future you could SLI or Crossfire your consoles and crank up the details on certain games like crysis 4 [\lol]


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> [lol] would be sweet if in the future you could SLI or Crossfire your consoles and crank up the details on certain games like crysis 4 [\lol]



Well, no, because console are made to be non-upgradable, thats the whole point of them lol.  All people can hope for is better technology in them (ie CPU/GPU/RAM)....but it will still be years behind PC technology.

They couldnt even make a console with upgrade slots that allow you to easily change a cpu or gpu because the developers wouldnt know how to code the games properly.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> the day that i can use a keyboard mouse on a console will be the day when my pc uses onboard video.. cuz ill be gaming on a console most likley



you can use a keyboard and mouse with the ps3. you can also run an operating system on it. i ran yellowdog linux for awhile and it was awesome!


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

any usb and mouse? can all the keys be binded to the users preference?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> any usb and mouse? can all the keys be binded to the users preference?



from what i have seen just about any. but it depends what OS you want to install on it. and i have no idea if you can bind keys.


----------



## CJCerny (Feb 16, 2010)

PS3 supports USB keyboard and mouse. Virtually no PS3 games support USB keyboard and mouse, however.


----------



## CJCerny (Feb 16, 2010)

shevanel said:


> [lol] would be sweet if in the future you could SLI or Crossfire your consoles and crank up the details on certain games like crysis 4 [\lol]



Forza on the X360 can do this.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 16, 2010)

There is only one game I know of that makes use of the Keyboard and Mouse on the PS3 and thats Unreal Tournament 3 and it has key bindings.


----------



## vbx (Feb 16, 2010)

So what if console are not upgradable? LOL.

A new one is going to cost you what 300-400 after a the initial release?

How much is a new graphic card or cpu?  

But honestly, the majority of gamers aren't going to care that the PC gamers are getting better Frames rates or whatever you guys are talking about. LOL.  As long as the games are fun that's what most important. 

Those "side-by-side" graphic comparison videos, I really don't see that much of a difference.  Maybe if you pause the game and get a still shot, I could see it more clearer.  But who plays game when it's on pause?


----------



## shevanel (Feb 16, 2010)

vbx said:


> So what if console are not upgradable? LOL.
> 
> A new one is going to cost you what 300-400 after a the initial release?
> 
> ...




lol you crack me up.. we were talking about you yesterday in another thread


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 16, 2010)

What we need is an upgradeable console that works with keyboard and mouse for us pc whores.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 16, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> What we need is an upgradeable console that works with keyboard and mouse for us pc whores.



you can upgrade the HDD in the ps3   but i doubt you will ever see an upgradable processor or graphics card because they dont want douchebags digging around inside their console.


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 16, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> you can upgrade the HDD in the ps3   but i doubt you will ever see an upgradable processor or graphics card because they dont want douchebags digging around inside their console.



Meh  In my mind it would be a console that you could swap components about and crap


----------



## AphexDreamer (Feb 16, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Meh  In my mind it would be a console that you could swap components about and crap



They could make a whole new market based on the idea and fact that users can trade and upgrades Console Hardware to make games better. Oh wait.... PC?


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 16, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> They could make a whole new market based on the idea and fact that users can trade and upgrades Console Hardware to make games better. Oh wait.... PC?



shh call it a console so they don't get disillusioned.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 16, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> shh call it a console so they don't get disillusioned.



lol


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 16, 2010)

Consoles are Communist Computers


----------



## Yukikaze (Feb 16, 2010)

Bo$$ said:


> Consoles are Communist Computers



Sigged.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 17, 2010)

digibucc said:


> not yet - i will for sure, but BF:BC2 stole me away
> 
> for sure, 2010 is the year of the PS3!



Yeah I've been playin the demo quiet alot lately, really fun but I die alot more compared to battlefield 1943 lol and yes, this is the yr for the PS3


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Feb 17, 2010)

Mussels said:


> 1Kurgan1: what the article really says, is that the PS3 GPU is so weak, they used the CPU to do some of its work... and it worked well.



The PS3 basically uses a NV 7900, and the 360 basically uses a ATI x1900. Both are roughly the same power, weak by todays standards, but when you don't have to worry about making the title support every piece of hardware under the sun, they are better optimized. What I see it is saying is, we can push more out than just a 7900 could, because the processor is really that good.



shevanel said:


> any usb and mouse? can all the keys be binded to the users preference?



I use a mouse and keyboard on my PS3 all the time, any USB ones I have tried so far work. But not many games support it, in the future I bet there will be support for this though, we'll see.


----------



## Lionheart (Feb 17, 2010)

lol I remember back in 2005 or 2004, sony was talking about the PS3's graphical abilities and they were comparing it too 6800Ultra's in SLI mode, back then I thought to myself, WHOAA!!! thats crazy, but now I laugh in shame lol.


----------



## Zubasa (Feb 17, 2010)

Bo$$ said:


> Consoles are Communist Computers


NO. 
Consoles are *worst* than Commies Computers 
Here you can simply walk across the boarder and meet the commies


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 18, 2010)

Well, I started playing 'Uncharted 2' yesterday.  All I can say is "you PC only guys are missing out BIG TIME!"


----------



## Phxprovost (Feb 18, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Well, I started playing 'Uncharted 2' yesterday.  All I can say is "you PC only guys are missing out BIG TIME!"



I own a ps3 as well, couldn't care less about uncharted 2...and don't feel like im missing anything


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 18, 2010)

Phxprovost said:


> I own a ps3 as well, couldn't care less about uncharted 2...and don't feel like im missing anything



Why, dont you like that style of game?


----------



## digibucc (Feb 18, 2010)

I don't think you are missing out - as in an experience you must have that you can't get anything similar anywhere else.  it's like a tomb raider game DONE RIGHT, with quality gun play...

that being said, the series was one of the reasons I bought my ps3 , and I have been extremely happy with it.


----------



## r9 (Feb 18, 2010)

@1Kurgan1 XBOX 360 uses card that has unified shaders so it cant be compared to x19xx more like HD2900 but less shaders and dedicated silicon instructions and cache memory for AA.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 18, 2010)

r9 said:


> @1Kurgan1 XBOX 360 uses card that has unified shaders so it cant be compared to x19xx more like HD2900 but less shaders and dedicated silicon instructions and cache memory for AA.



it was based on an x1900, (and has similar performance) - but supported tesselation and unified shaders. It was something of ATI's prototype for the 2K series.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 18, 2010)

Mussels said:


> it was based on an x1900, (and has similar performance) - but supported tesselation and unified shaders. It was something of ATI's prototype for the 2K series.



What he said  (hence it being superior to the PS3's GPU)


----------



## _33 (Feb 19, 2010)

The PS3's RSX has the same graphics capabilities as a Geforce 7900GTX if I recall, but with slower memory and slower gpu speed.  The 7900GTX has been hugely surpassed by the 8800GTX, and the 8800GTX has been since then massively surpassed by the ATI 4800 series graphics card.  And since the 4800 series we now have the 5800 series cards which are almost double the 4800.  So basically, the PS3 is light years behind the PC graphically, and that is an understatement.  Let's not forget Direct X 10, and Direct X 11...  Just look at the transistor count of the chips...  I think the 5800 series has something like 2 billion transistors, while the 7900GTX (say RSX) has something like 278 million (?)...

EDIT:  Oh... And this topic here should clear some things... http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/186415-29-power-questions


----------



## LifeOnMars (Feb 19, 2010)

I put Oblivion in, it looked like crap and stuttered, I turned it off.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 19, 2010)

LifeOnMars said:


> I put Oblivion in, it looked like crap and stuttered, I turned it off.



On PC or Console?


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 19, 2010)

HookeyStreet said:


> Well, I started playing 'Uncharted 2' yesterday.  All I can say is "you PC only guys are missing out BIG TIME!"



really? my life seems pretty good without wasting time on the amazing 'uncharted 2' 

the only worthy PS3 game is gran turismo 5, everything else = POS


----------



## DrPepper (Feb 19, 2010)

Bo$$ said:


> really? my life seems pretty good without wasting time on the amazing 'uncharted 2'
> 
> the only worthy PS3 game is gran turismo 5, everything else = POS



GT5 doesn't seem like it will ever come out.


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 19, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> GT5 doesn't seem like it will ever come out.



well the Prologue was still awsome


----------



## LifeOnMars (Feb 20, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> On PC or Console?



PS3, It was sarcasm that went unoticed


----------



## KingPing (Feb 20, 2010)

I Own a PS3
played Killzone 2 Great game but the control is horrible, and lag.
played SOCOM i love it until i tired of guess what, yes the control, and lag.
played resistance, the control:shadedshu
played COD4 looks like crap on ps3 especially if you are use to play it on PC, and lag.
played BC2 demo, the control:shadedshu
and a lot more and its always the control and lag.

 what graphics capability are we talking about, (dont get me wrong, i not a fanboy of the PC or PS3 or 360) sure i also can use 24x AA with 1280x720, i would like to see Killzone 2, Uncharted 1,2 , etc running at 1080p, with acceptable FPS.
 Im tired of Sony and Microsoft saying that their consoles are the most powerful thing on earth, remember, that they even said that the PS3 would support dual screens.
 Its always the same from 10 games released only 1 or 2 have decent graphics, i have no problems with consoles, but saying PS3 is more powerful than high end video cards its a huge pile of C***.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 20, 2010)

Bo$$ said:


> really? my life seems pretty good without wasting time on the amazing 'uncharted 2'
> 
> the only worthy PS3 game is gran turismo 5, everything else = POS



So youve played Uncharted 2 from start to finish then?  You obviously havent or you would agree with me, the countless other PS3 owners and games reviewers!

And by my comment, I didnt mean 'everyone should rush out and get a PS3' just that its a shame that games like this are not available on the PC aswell.



KingPing said:


> I Own a PS3
> played Killzone 2 Great game but the control is horrible, and lag.
> played SOCOM i love it until i tired of guess what, yes the control, and lag.
> played resistance, the control:shadedshu
> ...



You seem to be getting a lot of LAG issues, are you sure your internet connection isnt dodgy?  Plus, you dont like the FPS on Uncharted 2?  I play it on a 42" LCD TV @ 1080p 60Hz and its as smooth as silk.


----------



## erocker (Feb 20, 2010)

I played Uncharted 2 at a freinds house and he had to pry the controller out of my hands. Great game! I'd love to see it on a PC where it would have better resolution textures and a mouse and keyboard. It's good to see after five years that developers are finally understanding how to make a great game for the PS3 and use all of its hardware.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Feb 20, 2010)

erocker said:


> I played Uncharted 2 at a freinds house and he had to pry the controller out of my hands. Great game! I'd love to see it on a PC where it would have better resolution textures and a mouse and keyboard. It's good to see after five years that developers are finally understanding how to make a great game for the PS3 and use all of its hardware.



I totally agree.  Only someone that hasnt played the game would label it as shite!


----------



## 99vw (Feb 21, 2010)

Lol this title couldn't be any more misleading.


----------

