PS3 visuals versus M11x visuals

I have 13/14 years old sons that I bought a ps3 for to allow them to have fun while getting blueray for myself.

I needed a small laptop for myself so I bought this m11x. I figured I can start copying bluerays like I used to years ago with dvddecrypter.

I also figured they could play pc games.

I am wondering though when comparing the same game being played on the same 720p display, will the m11x look more stunning.

I am not a gamer myself however I do want to know how good or bad one toy I get for them is over another toy.

So, will the m11x at 720p with max settings look better visually than the PS3 ?

(I believe PS3 does not have settings buy just insert and play).

Also, what about the same question on a 1080p display ?

Thanks for any feedback.

 

unless it's cross platform you cant really compare, but overall they will be about the same.

 

It really depends on the game, some games just look way better on PS3 than on PC and vice versa. But it's a fact that a PS3 is way more powerful than an Alienware M11X. For example: Killzone 3, a PS3 exclusive, would not be playable on a M11X. The visuals of Killzone 3 are just stunning.

 

You should not compare a platform with a computer. The two are totally different. The components are no where near the same. And a desktop that could handle everything a PS3 can handle will be very very expensive. So in other words the M11x CANNOT compete.

 

I am shocked at these answers so far.

I was hoping m11x would be better because you pay a lot for it. I got the i7 for approx $1200.

PS3 is $299 with a free blueray player.

Geez.

 

Yeah, I completely agree, Killzone 3 is unbelievable.

But the PS3 and a PC are a completely different beast altogether. Once you buy a game for a PS3, you just insert the disc and play. In most of my experiences For a PC however, to get the full potential out of a game (which will often look much nicer than its console counterpart), you must tweak many various settings and occasionally switch drivers just to play.

They will obviously appeal to different people though, some will like the ease of use of the PS3 and some will like the control (and mods available) of a PC.

EDIT: Where can you get a PS3 for $299? That would be an awesome price. A new one in Australia costs around $450!

 

Indeed, Crysis 2 is better on PC. Battlefield 3 will support 64 players on PC and just 24 on PS3 and Xbox 360.

And as powerful as the PS3 is, the Xbox 360 is way less powerful. Because developers often first develop games for Xbox 360 and port it to PS3 afterwards, the Xbox 360 version looks better.

PS: I got my PS3 (120GB or 60GB, I'm not sure) for 299 euro...

 

The Ps3 gets most of it's power from its Cell proccessor. You can't compare it even to most Desktop PCs.

Although the Video card is somewhere around 7800 GTX (give or take) PS3 games are much more optimized than PC games. Especially when you see games like Killzone 3 and God of war 3, lets not bring in Uncharted 2 and 3.

The CPU is what holds back the m11xs alot, whether it is i7 or Core 2 duo. If properly programmed on ps3, Being able to use SPE (Cell) for graphics, Such as MLAA and Deffered Shading. This is why Battlefield will be very close match between PC and ps3 @ 720p.

Remember an M11x struggles alot even with battlefield, which both the 360 and the ps3 have a major advantage.

X360 with it's 3 core proccessor, and PS3 with its 2 threaded 9 SPE Cell (1 disabled and 1 for XMB)

Just to give you an idea of how powerful the ps3 is, it can keep up with my m11x when doing folding at home, even though my m11x uses GPU which should be 10 x's faster than common CPUs.

@ OP

M11x can look much better than ps3 at Max settings for multiplatforms, but it def won't perform better. And as for the price argument. Lets not forget the m11x is portable, has wonderful battery life, can do ALOT more than the ps3 and is smaller.

So thats what your paying for. You could easily go and buy a Desktop @ 500 (building it urself that is) and manage to get higher frames and more texture quality/effects in multiplatform games than the ps3.

Would I recommend this laptop as a main gaming machine. Def not. Would I recommend it to gamers on the go, for now yes. We'll talk again when psp 2 comes out

 

Rather than go into the nuances of what differentiate a console from a computer, why are we even doing this in the first place. A console is basically designed to do two things, run movies and play games. While the ps3 used to have linux support thats a one off thing and its not its specialty anyway. You can play games on a ps3 (and with good coding get excellent graphics) and you can play games on a decent computer (and with good hardware get even better graphics). That aside the m11x wont be much worse, will sometimes be even better, and its a COMPUTER. It will do anything, while a ps3 is purpose built. If your only objective is to play games then a computer probably isnt on your radar anyway, and you will end up with an xbox or ps3 (with the main difference being a kinda lame control interface (controllers suck)). If you need a portable computer and want to game then there is the m11x. Comparing the two is pointless, its like comparing a dump truck and a sports car.

 

You can do a lot of thing with the m11x that the PS3 can´t, you know, the thing that a PC can do and not a console...

About the graphics power of the PS3 vs the m11x, well, I have played a lot of games that are both in the m11x and the PS3/Xbox 360, and they look better in the m11x

About the exclusives, like Killzone 3 and like maybe Uncharted 2, of course they look better in the PS3, since those games where made around the PS3 hardware, I bet if some developer makes a game around the m11x hardware, it would look way better than those games, but no, a PC games is made to work in millions of setup combinations, powerful CPUS, GPUS, amount of RAM, etc. Is not the same

But in a multiplat game, I have Battlefield Bad Company 2, Batman AA, Bioshock, Mafia II, Assassins Creed, Fallout 3, Dirt 2, Oblivion, Resident Evil 5, etc. and they all look better in the m11x....

 

the ps3 has a crappy 7900gtx gpu and the m11x is a gt335m which is a lot better

 

its not about video card vs video card. Look at my cousin's laptop, it has a much weaker video card, yet it wipes the floor with my M11x cuz of the CPU differences. (in black ops + BF BC 2)

Its the same with ps3 and M11x, games can look cleaner, but dont forget the screan is also smaller which even if we run Sub-HD we can still have a decent pixel ration to not cause blinding blur.

As for the statement games meant to be optimized for m11x isn't the case. It runs off Win32 code, which is windows based and thats its optimization. The fact that all games are programed for windows, theres an optimization. What you can say is we can optimize for multithread, which will still not put it at an advantage compared to the ps3 in terms of raw power.


Lets just end this now shall we?

In terms of raw power, the ps3 has much more under the hood. In terms of graphic potential both varie depending the game. The ps3's major draw back is the low RAm for both operation and VRam.

So textures will always look better on m11x (if it can run the game) and specular, physics and lighting will most likely look better on the ps3.

The games Uncharted 2 and killzone 3 wouldn't run on the same detail level on the m11x even if optimized. The laptop just doesn't have enough cores to spare nor is it very program friendly in terms of what the hardware can be used for. For example it easily programed for in general but the hardware is designed to work in a set way.

CPu = Physics, AI and calculations
Video Card = Eyecandy
Hard drive is loading and ram is amount of data running at a time, preferably in sync with the amount the CPU can pump out

Ps3 runs off a very generous system, have a Proccesaur than be used to take care of visuals when Video card is stress. So all the un used SPEs can be assigned to tasks like AA and Def Shading. Though still limited by ram.

Also Don't forget that 90% of Ps3 games run V-synced at 30 fps, and triple buffered in some cases, which we dont have the luxury of that cuz it would kill our resources.

So I guess the conclusion is like other ppl said, they can't be compared. The ps3 can be optimized properly to be used more intelligently, while pc users run off raw power to make sure everything is working well.

You can up the graphics to look much prettier in multiplatforms on ur m11x but theres no gaurantee you can keep that 30 fps.

Or you can say graphic card demanding multiplats will look better on m11x, and cpu intense multiplatforms, will look better or run better on ps3.

Another example would be DC universe, very laggy on my m11x but unplayable at times, while on ps3 its very much playable.

I also personally dont think the m11x can do uncharted 2 graphics or Killzone 3 graphics with that much detail even if optmized for m11x per say. Just to much CPU demanding.

 

You can't compare a PS3 with a computer.

A Ps3 is old technology, almost 6 years old. Every month we have new computers, with the latest of technology...

Computer games looks much better, any game that is the same in both systems wll always look better on PC. (Blur, PES 2011, FIFA, Need For Speed, Guitar Hero)...

The only two points where PS3 wins is in exclusive titles, and it is cheaper than a m11x...

 

Thank you! Some sanity.

A lot of people are chiming in, but my first-hand experience shows that the M11x wins over and over again. I've tried with two-and-a-half dozen games. The only exceptions are the exclusives which are almost countable on one hand.

 

PS3 is better. A M11x can't game @ 1080p.

Also it's hard to compare a PC vs console because of the SPU that the PS3 utilizes vs the CPU/GPU combo that a typical PC uses, and the benefit that developers can maximize the processing unit of a console, while with a PC, the process is pretty spread out for various reasons, with one of them being that the game needs to run acceptably on multiple setups.

 

You can't play Dragon Age 2 at a coffee shop or at the laundromat with a PS3. End thread.

 

Very few games are 1080p native on the PS3, most of them are upscaled at 1080p, but the native resolution is 1280x720 or less...

Because if you say the PS3 can do 1080p, upscaled, so the m11x, just play games at 766p on a 1080p display.....

Native 1080p PS3 games are like 20, and half or more are games in the PSN store...

 

lol the ps3 might have more cpu power, but theres only a handfull of games that are totaly cpu dependent, but in terms of gpu power its not really comparable.
besides, the ps3 doesnt have a screen attached to it and no battery, and it takes a crap load more power to run a ps3 then it does a m11x.
think about it,
m11x, only need external mouse for gaming

ps3, tv, controllers, cords, theres a lot more to power, and its not portable.

 

I am really, really learning a lot.

I have always been under the impression that PS3 games are 720p upscaled to 1080p.

 

it's all about the experience and so the PS3 and M11x provide a different gaming experience. if you want to game on the go then the M11x will do but if you want to chill out with friends in your living space then a PS3.

it's all about the experience each provide.

 

Very well said thegh0sts.

Personally, I have so much more fun playing on a PS3 with my brother and friends than I do on my M11x. Not to say I don't enjoy gaming on my M11x, I like it alot and it shines in many different areas but I think I enjoy the console experience a bit more

 

I have to disagree with a lot of this. But mainly, about DC Universe being laggy on the M11x compared to the PS3.

I've been playing DC Universe Online through my M11x-R2 at 1920x1080 running to a 60" Pioneer Kuro with absolutely no lag whatsoever and leveled my character all the way up to 30 with that setup. Trust me, it was a blast

As said before, the PS3 is severly limited by it's amount of VRam and Ram. Only 2 games in it's entire library can run at full 1080p, and all have to run at 720p to get comparable visuals to a 360, much less a notebook PC designed for gaming.

The M11x can nominally output to a secondary monitor 1366x768 vs. the PS3's 1280x720p. That right there already bumps the M11x ahead when running to a secondary monitor.

I own consoles for the console exclusive games, like Gears of War or Killzone3 (agree, it is awesome and beautiful and so much fun to play SP with a PSMove Sharpshooter)

But on the multi-platform games, the M11x often looks better than either console.

Is the PS3 cell processor more powerful? Absolutely. But great games and how they look are dependent on so many different factors than just how much horsepower a CPU has.

And DCUO runs amazing on the M11x-R2 with TS enabled

(FTR. I am a multi-platform gamer and have no console bias or PC vs. Console Bias - I love them all)

 

Neither can most of the library of the PS3. Most games are capped at 720p.

Otherwise my Plasma's wouldn't constantly be changing to a 720p resolution when playing them vs. when I have my 360 or M11x hooked up. The exception's in my personal library being MGS4 and some of the downloadable titles. But most of the AAA games on the PS3 are capped by at 720p because of it's VRam.

There's a pretty famous story in the gaming industry about Cliffy B. going into a MS meeting about the 360 Hardware, when they were leaning towards going with 256mb VRam like Sony. And he said "Here's what the Unreal engine looks like with 256mb of VRam" - and showed them, and then "And here's what the engine looks like with 512mb of VRam."

And right then and there, MS changed the VRam spec. to 512mb.

And only going with 256mb of VRam has been argued by many as Sony's greatest mistake of the PS3

Games with older engines will run at 1920x1080 with an I7 and TS (DCUO being the example) - and all games still can output 1366x768 on the M11x thru HDMI vs. the PS3's 1280x720p. It is a noticeable improvement in graphics performance. And arguably gives it an edge over the PS3 in graphics. (emphasis on the word 'arguably')

 

All of you people... *sigh* PS3's hardware is couple of years old. A emulator for PS3 will run Kill-zone 3 at an unbelievable fps! PC is much better due to hardware, but its easier to play games on the PS3 because everyone has the same hardware, on PC its hard to optimize any game for every PC in the world! Also, the PS3's OS/Bio's is very small. Same goes for Xbox 360. My cousin works for Sony in Japan, he's on a 1 month shift, I don't know more information on what he does.

 

Am I really reading this?

M11x: in addition to all of the components needed to render graphics, it also has a screen and battery in it's small chassis... its smaller than the PS3.... I don't even know why this needs to be explained...

also... .... this post is just.... *head explodes*

 

Hahahahaha! Computer n00bies, always looking for free stuff. +1 to you sir for epic reply!

 

Yes, most games on the PS3 or xbox360 are 720p. Some more demanding ones, are at a lower res, like 600p/640p or so (I only remember the vertical line count), and are simply upscaled rather well (Halo 3, I remember, had a lot of people complaining about how it wasn't "true 720p," not that most people could tell at the 6-10ft they sit from the telly.

Though the 256mb thing is kinda different.

PS3 has 256 MB for the Cell CPU, and another 256MB for the GPU, it can be shared, but at a somewhat large larency and bandwidth penalty in multiple ways. xbox360 has a unified 512MB for the CPU and the GPU (linked to the GPU, CPU must DMA to use memory, due to lack of page/virtualization in the old GPU arch). Old xbox360 devkits using a Mac G4 proc and the Xenon GPU only had 256MB, that's true.

Yeah, and he actually paid 1300usd for it, lol. The outlet and other deals should shave a fair deal off of that figure, I got my sigrig (minus the SSD and the wLAN card) from the outlet for 900usd No scratches

Also, the M11x can do much more than the PS3 can, and anybody who dares to say the PS3 can browse the web is not a real PS3 owner Since the browser sucks worse than IE6, IMHO.

 

Dont get me wrong most of the time multiplatforms look better on m11x, but remember it also has a smaller screen, which for example, we can get away with not put AA...since smaller screen can make it look like it's already has AA sometimes (ofc just because the screen is smaller)

And although we can have Native 720p which is 1336x768, it doesn't mean we can handle it at a consistent 30 fps.

I'm just saying if the PS3 wanted, it could do better even with it's 6 yr old hardware, ppl don't know that it was designed to have the impact of time.

When you create a console you dont create it to last 3-6 months like a pc. You create it so that it lasts a couple of years.

Look at Gran Turismo 5, 6 years late, yet 1280x1080 @ 2x AA and 1280x720 @ 4X AA all running 60 fps.

I personally never enable AA on my m11x. The Framerate hit is just too great. Now with MLAA available to the ps3 market, it will have big advantage...doubtful in most multiplats but it will have an advantage.

To be honest, I've given up on both of them as gaming devices.

I use my ps3 for exclusives and games to play with my friends, and my m11x just for gaming at school during break.

If I want some real gaming, i just go on my main pc. I can't stand playing games sub 60 fps anymore.

Also there is one game that has an exception to all this which is multiplatform. Call of duty black ops. Which runs much better on both ps3 and 360.

MUCH better. 360 a constant 60 fps, ps3 50 fps (sub 640p) and m11x, which I can barely reach 40 fps, and its never consistent...it drops in 20s and sometimes teens, even with lowest quality and lowest resolution

 

AlienOnions and Zlog, please keep your head from exploding.

This is not a newbie issue. You ever play Pacman ? I have.

I have been using PC's and writing code for PC's, servers and mainframes since before you ....

This thread has nothing to do with the portability of the m11x versus ps3.
This thread has nothing to do with the m11x being able to run windows/linux versus the ps3 not being able to.

This thread is about whether ps3 visuals look better, same or worse than a PC. PERIOD.

Have a drink or see a doctor before your head explodes.

 

You forgot the insane amount of screen tearing, trees that look right out of ocarina of time (a N64 game) and the fact that 800 of the 1000 cars in the game look worse than PS2 models.....

http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/p3/g/r/gran-turismo-5-playstation-3-ps3-443.jpg

 

Now the question becomes better than WHICH pc?

 

A laptop PC model named m11x made by alienware.

 

The Cell CPU is not as amazing as some of you make it out to be. Faster than even i7? Good laughs. Also, KZ3 uses too much film grain and backdrops but that is required for such underpowered system.

 

i LOL'd when someone said 720p was 1366x768. that would be 1280x720. most of the ps3's games look a couple years old compared to pc, theres maybe a couple that dont. and maybe you dont like "sub" 60 fps, but really anything 30 and over you dont see the difference.

also the ps3 has performance problems in some games too.

 

True, but blame the stores, they brand 1280x768 and 1366x768 HDTVs as 720p tvs...

My old Philips 26" 1366x768 has a 720p all over the box

 

lol yeah, not sure why they would call it 720p. but most people wont know the difference.

 

That's true, how can something so old defy Moore's Law? Can't compare them directly though since they're different architectures.

It's marketed as 720p compatible.

 

aaahhh now i get it lol.

 

Don't exaggerate, the game doesn't look anywhere near what your pic shows. there is no justice, also dont forget that the game gets monthly patches that still completes the game. Also I haven't played a better looking racing game on pc, other than Dirt 2 or F1 which neither of those 2 run well enough on my m11x.

Also on the 720p topic, 720p = 1280x720p, 1336x768 = 768p.

As for 30 v 60, please dont be dumb, I'm sure you can tell the difference easily even going from 30-40.

Movies play at 30 and under.
Games play at 60+ (40 is where your eye starts having difficulty seeing)

The human eye can't tell the difference between still shots and moving shots at 24.97 (or something like that) fps. Though you can EASILY see the smoothness and speed going to 60 fps.

Please think before you say. Why do you think consoles yern to achieve 60 fps in cod? And 60 fps in Racing (GT 5 + FOrza 3). Because the game plays better at those frames and is alot more responsive.

You can say some games can get away with 30, such as RTS or slow paced shooters.

But can't tell the differences...please.

@ Crpcookie

Read about the Cell arch then talk about power. The potential is much greater. With multi threaded processes the i7 can easily beat the cell (windows based everyday programs). But when it comes to rendering and raw power of what the cell and CPU is used for, the Cell will bury most CPUs. Since SPE offer more leniency as to wat they can be used for.
There is no grain in Killzone 3 there is a eye effect, giving you the cinematic feeling to the game, but the amount of detail and 3D models rendered on screen is outstanding. Also running native 720 with MLAA.

Dont sell things short.

And ppl need to stop justifying their purchases like this. Example buyer's regret.

The m11x is a amazing piece of machinery and I personally dont regret buying it. But I know it's limits.

P.S

When I say I7 I mean desktop I7, the m11x i7 is not a real i7.If you want to put things into logic.

360 Xenon = 3.2 GHZ 3 core CPU w/ 3 threads extra
Cell = 3.2 GHZ 1 core w/ 2 threads and 8 Available SPEs (1 a spare disabled through software) (1 used for OS)
i7 mobile ULV (energy saving series) - 2 core w/ 2 threads extra

Honestly in terms of raw CPU power, there is no competition.

PS3 > 360 > i7 mobile

 

You're CPU limited in Dirt 2. I have benchmarks here that show a linear improvement when the CPU is overclocked.

 

yes agreed, but still your not running all maxed out, nor are you running AA, or 60 fps lol. Thats the point I'm getting accross.

Now again when maxed out that game will look gorgeous, I know cuz I run on my 480 GTX @ 1080p maxed, in fact looking much better than GT 5, although the 200 cars that look good in GT 5 in my personal opinion look better

 

Well said. I think most people confuse the i7 series. The mobile i7 is little more than a hyperactive core 2 duo (not like thats a bad thing), where as a i7 980x is a 6 core monster, not that you would know it from the naming scheme. What framerate do you consider unplayable for dirt 2 on your m11x? I get about 39fps average (overclocked) and consider it playable, even though Im used to gaming at over 60. Anything below 35fps really is hard to tolerate after running a desktop so long.

 

I personally like to keep it 40+, I mean I can close my eyes for the m11x cuz its just so practical, but if I were to really enjoy gaming 60+.

40 is my limit for smoothness, 60 is enjoyable, and 30 is just a last resort

 

Oy speaking of such, how did you ever get your i7 to over 4ghz? You must be running enormous voltage on it?

 

Absolutely ridiculous amout of voltage frankly I went 2 into the red zone. lol I haven`t had problems with it and gaming for liek 4-5 hours, but it does tend to BSOD once in a blue.

I just want to burn it out actually lol. Frankly I`m hoping to move to sandy bridge, but I just can`t waste this cpu. I`m going to make it bleed lol.

I`m also running water cooling for the CPU, so that helps I wish I still had chipset water cooling but oh well

 

Do the whole aquarium pc case deal. No seriously I dare you lol. And here I am sitting with my little air cooler powering away all day hahaha.

 

AHAHA, you know what I might actually do what I did to my old p4, and just sink it in some oil LOL. Keep there for some time and see how long until it finally gives

 

I cannot beleive sony doesnt have a laptop ps3.

One guy disassembeled one and put it inside a portable enclosure.

 

uumm wow, i dont see the difference between 30-60, 30 and 60 are both smooth, and 30 is by no means UNPLAYABLE. i call 15 fps unplayable. and i havent gone below 30 on any game on the m11x. shouldnt be worried about the fps, just worried if it looks smooth or not.

 

For the record, I wasn't misunderstanding his question on the comparison, and I wasn't assuming he was talking about portability... My head exploded (it really happened) because of the comment I quoted... he was essentially upset because his maxed-out 11" laptop was comparable in performance to a console that's showing it's age. That and the fact that he made it sound like he should be getting more simply because it cost more. That made me lol

Glad we could clear this up. I gotta go though, I'm still trying to find some bits of my frontal lobes.

I bet his head will really explode if he bought the 8GB RAM option if we tell him that theres next to zero performance increase in these machines with it from the 4GB option. Dont tell!