PC/Laptop vs Console

Good luck with that... Rockstar already signed a deal with Microsoft to keep the extra content exclusive to the 360. Graphically there will be no difference in the two releases, and I really doubt you'll see any user-made content of comparable quality until GTA4 is released for PC - if that ever happens. Oh, and thank god for the PS3 delaying the release of GTA4 and punishing everyone who has been waiting so long for this title.

 

they didnt optimize it well thats for sure. i think it runs it at 25-30 fps and all the settings arent even maxed out but my 8600m gt can run it with most max settings and never drop below 45 and average 60.

 

imo the environment etc.. will look better on the PS3 since it can handle more loads at once...

I believe the PS3 GTA4 will be better than the 360 one... well see

I think it delayed because they are refinning and adding stuff to the ps3 version

What extra content!? Music? Weapons? Basically like cheats but downloadable... I doubt there will be anything good because if they do that PS3 will go down the drains.... not literally lol but you get my point... GTA the most sold game on earth

 

its 2 extra chapters that add to the story. thats the only game im looking forward to on console.

 

Well we still have to wait for the RSX to be opened up to us.... Curious to see if the YDL6 might have something new for us that couldnt be done just by a new recomp of the latest kernel and cell sdk.

 

lol dude, just stop. The 360 version will be better, no argument about it..just like just about every other multiplatform game

no the environments will not look better on the PS3, they should be identical and if one would gets the edge it would most likely be the 360 version..just because that's how it usually pans out.

MS paid a lot of money for the downloadable content so it must be something good, I guess we'll have to wait and see

 

After owning a Ps3, I can honestly tell you that there is no contest between the 360 and it. The 360 blows it away in every aspect. Live is way better than PSN, More games, cross game messaging, custom soundtracks, and better utilized graphics.

All the Ps3 has going for it is the potential of the system and the fact that it has Blu-Ray.

I sold my Ps3 in June and got a 360, as you could tell.

2nd best decision ever, right after the Vostro I ordered in my sig....

 

I usually never get involved with arguments over consoles, but I just want to first say that I've owned both a 360 and a PS3.

To Dman7 that there are multi-platform games that are just as good on both the PS3 and the 360, COD4 and Burnout Paradise are two examples. I'm fairly certain that GTA IV will be identical between the two platforms, and mind you I'm sure Rockstar is bound by legal contract to ensure that both versions are identical.

To tmacfan, the 360 certainly doesn't blow away the PS3 in every aspect. Graphically they're pretty indistinguishable, some early games looked better on 360, and Madden looks a lot better, but that's about it. With regard to everything else, you can't say that online, gaming variety, soundtracks and messaging constitute 'every aspect' of a console. Mind you, PS3 comes with built in wireless, Bluray, hard drive swapability and a free online service. How can you compare a free online service to one you have to pay for anyway? Different people place different weight on different things, and what may be true for you isn't true for everyone.

I'm not saying the PS3 is better than the 360, all I'm saying is that you cannot generalize. They're both great systems in their own right and deciding you favor one over the other is a subjective call, it depends on what you want out of your console. If you prefer one over another, that's great, but don't generalize as if your opinion applies to everyone else. Anyway, sorry for hijacking the topic.

 

True, whats the point of:

1- Buying a console
2- Buying a game
3- Purchasing a subscription to play online
4- Continue purchasing that service so you can play online once it expires?!

Thats crazy, the only thing I think the 360 is better at is carrying more games but hey... ever seen the list for this year and upcoming games? Same craze as PS2 Devil may cry, turok, burnout, silent hill, metal gear... ooooh baby

 

ok have fun paying for those add-ons, 90% of the people could give 1/180 of a **** for add ons you will probably have to pay for, I just want to play the game, and the fact your allready paying for XBOX live and then for these stupid add ons is sorta dumb IMO

 

whats all this about GTA4 its just going to be GTA 3 with better graphics i for one aint interested as they dont bother doing anything new. and i BET the 360 exclusive content WILL end up on the PS3 as i believe the deal is a time exclusive deal.

 

Omg, system wars...
I own a PS2 just so I can play MGS2 and MGS3. I'll buy MGS4 when its released and i'll see about picking up a PS3 at that point.
But other than that I'm a PC gamer. I do own a PSP too since its great for a quick game when your traveling.

 

im currently a console gamer though im selling my consoles and going all out PC gamer

 

I like to stock up. I never really ditch any system. Might give some of 'em away if I really have no more room to store more computers, laptops and other related stuff.

 

if you have a spare 360,PS3 or £2000 PC then ill have one LOL

 

i dont think the ps3 can be beat so easily remember that the ps3 has 8 cpu cores that run at 3.2ghz. and 6 cores goes to the game, 1 to the os, and one is disable just in case one gets defective it turn on. game devolpers can use the cpu to create tree, land, water, etc. also the fps does not decrese when playing games at high resolution (720p,1080i,1080p) 1280*720,1920*1080
the ps3 gpu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'
also the ps3 cpu works at 128 bit so the amount of threads it delivers is mind bogleing
also the underesitmated 360 has almost the same specs, 3 cores at 3.2ghz 128bit. it has a cpu in each core total 6 cores (i think it's a form of ht)
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/xbox-three-sixty2.htm
and i know the 8800 is better than the ps3's gpu and the xbox 360
i love pc games and i think its far better than playing it on a console but i dont think you can underesimate the 7th generation consoles

 

I can set you up with an old Pentium 75 Mhz

I have a ton of systems in storage. Dunno why, guess its hard to part ways sometimes. Some get a new purpose in life. I use them for experiments or stuff I'd rather not try with my brand new PC right away.

Some systems I give away to friends and relatives who need a decent PC, laptop or parts. There's no sense in really charging someone money for your old junk and if it makes someone happy I'm cool with it. This is the list of "old" systems I keep around:

Pentium 75 Mhz
32 Mb RAM
500 Mb HDD
Windows 95

Pentium II 333 MHz
128Mb RAM
Voodoo 2
2Gb HDD
Windows 98

Pentium II 433Mhz
128Mb RAM
Voodoo 2
8Gb HDD
Windows 98/ NT 4.0 dual boot

Pentium III 800Mhz
256Mb
Voodoo 4 w/ 32Mb VRAM
20 Gb HDD
Windows Millenium Edition (yeah... I know)

Okay the P III died and I use it for spare parts.

Pentium 4 2,8Ghz
1 Gb RAM
ATI Radeon 9600XT / 9800 Pro (I switched them occasionaly)
80Gb HDD
Windows XP Home Edition

This is my "experiment" machine. It's no big issue if it needs to be formatted or any thing. Did give away the Radeon 9800 Pro.

I have another bunch is system that are in (almost) regular use.

 

give away for FREE, why?
even if its a family memebr i would still make them pay, but hey thats just me^^
i like money ALOT!!!

 

Well, I don't give any guarantees with my systems. They've usually been through a lot like OC'ing and that kind of stuff. Besides what good is a Pentium 75 nowadays. The P4 is still good, so it's not going away right now.

I don't just give them to anyone. I give 'em to someone I know and like and who needs something.

 

If anyone starts about which is better than which.. i think we should start talking about unicorns AGAIN...

 

i started this thread just asking what kinda of graphics can i expect with my new set up and its spirled out of control

 

that's the funny about it

 

Guess it got hijacked. Lol.

 

^^just a bit

 

Its just good conversation.

 

^^ well im not complaining
i need something to do in lesson^^

 

Lol. Just be careful no-one catches you. .
I played Counter-Strike on my laptop when I didn't have classes... Drains the battery though.

 

My Two cents on this subject.

First off the bat is GPU within consoles.
XBox 360 = 1900 XTX TO 1950 XTX With 10MB EDRAM
PS3 = 7900 GT with 256 Dedicated memory.

So if you look at benchmarks
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=723&model2=711&chart=279
Now this is just a guess, since there is really no way of benching just more less getting a rough idea. In all honset I think the xbox360 would win do the 10MB for AA and AF /MAA.

So no matter what they be able to handle the game at hand.
(So stop with one is better than the other I honsetly say that they are even with Gpu power.)
Now which looks better? All Depends on
A. What you clarfiy of better
B. What you are plugin in to argo Display.
C. what game you are comparing with.


CPU with consoles
Xbox360 = IBM Triple Core working at 3.2ghz in order process
PS3 = 8 cell processor (In truth only six run)

Xbox360 = Easy to code and publish due to if you right for one core the other two can read it as well.
Con to these. If write code is screwed up it screwed for the other two cores.
Also Common core tech can only take so much physic and AI Calu with process.

PS3= Six Cell = Tons of coding since each cell does different fuction in to relation to game play . So one for Ai and one for physics.
and so fourth.

So in all.
XBox360 = Can handle really nice graphic's but can't handle full physic's or Ai able.

PS3 = Can really handle ALL AI and physic's but not fully graphicly inable due not all AA /AF.

My Cents in this.
Xbox 360 = Halo players want easy AI and fantasy graphics
PS3= Fall of whatever want Realistic AI and Realistic graphics

But in all honsetly.
Pc vs console.
PC will always win due consent GPU upgrades. software updates, and so much consent updates.
Not where Console have to wait for these patches or fixes.

 

The PC just can do so much more than just game. That makes it a true winner for me.

 

pc will always win but with so much flaws on the ps3 and 360, these consoles are still amazing

 

My pilosophy is get something that makes you happy and go with it, if you don't like it simply move on.

PC games do get the better graphics and you can upgrade it, problem is you have to deal with bugs and patches, having enough installation space, configure the game, sound settings and all.

Console game graphics are optimized to run on that console already so you can get the best graphics experience the console can give, oh and you don't take any space on the hard drive or configure anything, just insert the disc and be on with it.

Yes, you can't upgrade a console, but what computer system lasts more than 5 years before it chokes on newer games or software requirements and need to replace it alltogether?

Personally, I own both a PC and consoles and like them both. To me, choosing between both is just a matter of preference.

Want to play MGS, Halo 3 or (insert console exclusive game)? Get the console. Want to play Crysis, Bioshock, (or insert PC game with crazy graphics here) go get the PC.

Want both? Get both.

 

PS3 CELL is not 8 cores, it's 1 PP + 8 SPEs (like you said one often disabled), the SPEs are far less functional than CPU core. They are also 32bit not 128, the PPE has limited 128bit support.

The X360's Xenon is 3 hyperthreaded PowerPC cpre processor on single die, which you can see as equivalent to either 3 cores running at 3.2ghz or 6 cores running at 1.6ghz as effective power and any combination therin.

Both would be clobbered byt a Skulltrail running 2 Quad cores at 3ghz, however you have issues with OS overhead which may or may not be an issue depending on whether the game is actually anywhere near optimized for the design.

Sofar Devs say it's harder to program for PS3, however what that means to performance is all relative because regardless of the ease of programming, it still ends up usually being quicker and better on the native system and not the system it's being ported to regardless of how good it's features are or how lean it could theoretically be.

 

Well recently XBox 360 games have been receiving patches to fix glitches. So patching isn't exclusive to PC's anymore.
Besides I don't mind a patch if it adds new things. And bugs should be fixed. BF2 received also new maps with certain patches. Breaths new life into games sometimes. BF2142 was kinda lacking in support like that. It wasn't until the most recent patch that a new map was added.

 

Just to correct a few misconceptions. (Although Punisher got one before me with his short reply, dang, details! )

Consoles requires patches and bug fixes, PS3 firmware is now 2.1x after a bazillion fixes in the 1.3-1.7 era.
Also, there's no 'install space' on basic Xbox and Wii and now we see some games for Xbox may need that persistent storage ability.

You usually need to configure one, but start up time is usually faster than what a PC involves having to load the OS first, but once that's done load times are very similar, so if you run in sleep mode it's the same insert disk and go.

Actually you can, but it's limited to things like HardDrives and peripherals.

Any S939 system likely would last 5 years without having to be entirely replaced, and had I not moved to mobile only, I could probably still use the HDD, PSU and Optical drive of my old Athlon XP series system, and even could use the 1GB of fast DDR400 if I had to. See that's the thing, it doesn't always have to be completely replaced.

Exactly. Main thing is to play the games rather than worry about the politics.

 

Agree, I own Intel Quad core desktop, AMD AM2 desktop, Core 2 Duo laptop, PS3 and a Wii.

Yup it's sometimes hard to decide what to play but it's a nice hard choice.

 

Most next gen consoles struggle with running older games. My copy of MGS3: Snake Eater won't run on a PS3 so I've heard.

Most parts of a PC can be indefinetly re-used. Like I said a CPU can last you a good while. A fast Pentium 4 (about 3Ghz) can still hack it today with gaming.

My Core 2 Duo is pretty futureproof.

 

That is not true anymore, Devil May Cry 4 and another golf game are required to be installed in the hard drive of the PS3. 5GB for Devil May Cry 4, don't know for the golf game. The developers said that it is to take advantage of loading times... but I don't believe that's the reason.

Edit: here is the link for DMC4: http://kotaku.com/352354/dmc4-takes-20-minutes-to-install-worth-it

 

what about a p4 with ht. is it with get a agp video card and physic ageia
or stay with my lappy

 

Well the Pentium 4 you mention is hindered by its AGP connection. Those with PCI-e can upgrade to any card they like. Some manufacters do make AGP DX10 cards. A lot of ATI's cards are still released as AGP, though not the high end ones. But a high end DX9 card, which there are lots of even with AGP, can cut it for now.
Still, if your Pentium 4 has socket 775 you can consider getting a new mobo for it with PCI-e. Doubt that there are many Socket 478 mobo's available.

You're lappy is the easiest way to go right now. The 8600M GS isn't stellar, but it should handle most games fine. It's Core 2 Duo will probably put that Pentium 4 to shame in terms of power.

 

it does by a long short, in benchmarks, games, every thing except boot time. and the socket is 478

 

You could try your luck to find a socket 478 Mobo with a PCI-e slot. It could give your Pentium 4 a new leash on life.

Boot time isn't that important. It becomes annoying when my PC takes so long to boot that I can eat a sandwich and do my taxes and still have time left hen.

 

You have got to be kidding me

GTA4 is modeled after New York... which looks nothing like san andreas or whatever

And yes I agree, PS3 will definitaly have add ons etc...

I actually believe they are working on GTA4/PS HOME interactivity

 

PS3 60GB (which I own) will run about 98% of old games PS2 and PS

PS3 80GB which uses software emulation can only play about 80% which is probably the one that cant play your game

there is 20GB PS3 40GB 60GB 80GB 90GB (in korea I believe and with IPtv)

60GB is still the best because all the rest were manufactured cheaper so the price could be dragged down, thats why I payed $560 (yes) for my PS3 during christmas.

A friend of mine bought the 80GB and is pissed because he cant play some games, it runs slower during some games (TF2) and its different internally

And on top of that I would love to brag about my 320GB PS3 soon *plugs his WD 320GB in* hahaha *and then adds 4 250GB external hard drives

 

The Euro PS3 is reall crippled. The US one includes parts of the PS2 so it can run older games. The European PS3 emulates and does a poor job. Dunno what the last updates have done for it, but I heard its still poor.

 

ATi's HD3850 is pretty close to the top, and likely more card than any P4 (or even PentiumD) could keep fed.

So something like that would be more than fine, although and AGP HD2600 might be best since they're selling for under $85.

 

NOOOO

THE 60GB ANY COUNTRY VERSION is the one which includes parts of PS2

any other version DOESNT have PS2 parts (maybe the korean 90gb does)

 

I haven't seen the 3850 in an AGP version in the on-line shop I use. But it doesn't really matter, I've got PCI-e.
Its kinda useless to pair a Pentium 4 with something like an 8800GTX. Still a Pentium 4 is a good budget CPU. It beats Net Burst based Celerons which it seems are still plentiful. A lot of people still use Pentium 4's. It'll take a couple of years for dual core to become standard.

If I'm gonna get a PS3 it'll be the 40Gb version. I just want to play MGS4 on it. Maybe a few other games, but thats just it.

 

A little DRM fun: http://lazytownpiracy.ytmnd.com/

 

Thx for correcting my post, I need to word my posts a bit better.

Yeah, until now, consoles are getting firmware patches, still my point was that, most console games are finished from the get go. Sad that consoles are starting to behave more a bit like PC's.

My point was, you need not to constantly look for updated sound or video card drivers or sometimes fiddle with settings and drivers just to run a specific game on a console.

Some games have used a console's hard drive (this happened with the original Xbox as well) as a cache to load things faster, still, the games could run without an HDD installed.

My point about installing a game is that you don't need "really" install a game to run on a console.

Since I don't have a PS3 (I've only seen them working) I had no idea that the game required some sort of "installation" as lozanogo mentioned. I believe (and that is my opinion) it has to be some sort of cache as well, if you will, so the console can access data that it frequently uses faster such as character models, textures and the like.

Not sure how fast the console is to access data that is scattered throughout a Blu-Ray disc that without the laser having to jump like crazy (and probably causing choppy music or increased loading times) looking through 25-50GB of data, especially if the console's physical RAM is being pushed to the edge and the laser can't keep a steady data flow.

Yeah, my point was that you do not need to load up Windows or any OS to play. Just simply insert the disc and go.

My point in this one is that I've seen people bashing consoles because you can't upgrade them pretty much like you can with a computer as in processor, video card or RAM.

Other console parts like peripherals or hard drives are understandable as consoles have also become multimedia entertainment centers and offer downloads. Which is quite appealing to download content right into it.

Yeah that too. My point was that although a computer can be used to up to 10 years or more if you like, constantly increasing game and graphics demands make it impossible to keep a system for more than 5-6 years if you want to run something without making heavy sacrifices with regards to graphics.

With consoles not being upgradeable its life span really suffers as gamers now are constantly demanding prettier looking games or more complicated ones that require more CPU, space or simply heavier graphics.

See? We can all get along.

 

Personally I'm not console specific. I'm just there for the games.