PS3 gaming performance versus a desktop/laptop

Just wondering, what are the specs of a desktop (or laptop) that will provide similar gaming performance to a PS3? I mean graphics detail, AI, etc., not necessarily have same hardware (because even if you have kick- hardware if it doesn't run it well then it's worthless).

Also how would a desktop with a Core i7-950 with 6 GB DDR3 RAM and an ATI 4980 compare?

 

The PS3 renders most games at 720p (or below, some even at 1024x640) so it doesnt take a monster to compete. Your own laptop (with 4670) would be compareable - put on COD4 at 1024x640 and the same settings and the FPS would be the same or better I would wager.

A desktop with 4890 and i7 is on another planet in terms of performance.

 

You cannot compare console gaming with PC gaming. Similar threads have been here before and usually they get locked / moved to off-topic.

Simply said the PS3 hardware is very different than the components used in PC. Though the GPU is between the nVidia 7800GTX and 7900GTX.
The CPU is with a very different architecture. It's 8-core and allows very detailed worlds, very smart AI's and realistic physics, that's it. Oh and note that consoles have only 512mb of ram.

Yet, there is nothing on PC nor other consoles what can be compared with Uncharted 2 : Among Thieves or something like Killzone 2.

The computer specs you listed above are better than PS3 specs if you want a direct answer, but in gaming it still doesn't match up. But note that multiplatform games what are developed for console s and PC tend to have lower resolution on console versions. Only exclusive games can bring out the hardware power of a machine.

 

OK, then I guess what about performance comparison between a desktop/laptop and a PS3 for popular games like

- CoD 4
- CoD 5
- CoD 6 when it's out
- Assassin's Creed
- Assassin's Creed 2
- GTA 4 (is it out for PS3)

and any other games that are popular and demanding?

 

These games are all multiplatform games and you can get better performance and better visuals on high end PC.

 

Read this first

 

Oh and do consoles render games in 1080p yet?

 

Only a handful list of games are native 1080p but most of the others can be upscaled.

 

Here, allow me....


http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=pc+equivalent+to+ps3

 

here is a pretty good video to show the difference in certain games of xbox 360, ps3, and a PC w/ an 8800 gts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk

(make sure to watch in HD).

If you have a system with a C2D or better and a GPU of an 8700+, than you will be on par or better than the consoles. Generally speaking of course.

 

Nice comparision. Anyway, PC is supreme.

 

Yes and nothing can compare against Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2? Bull, just say Crysis and you know what to expect or Armed Assault 2 maxed out, it beats the crap out of both console games. Don´t believe me? Check some screens or I will provide them myself. Far Cry 2 Ultra High settings is another game that beats both games graphically.

 

it may beat them, but at what cost does someone have to buy a PC or laptop that can do that?

A ps 3 that can play Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 goes for £350 MAX i got mine with 11 games for around 180, what can you got for a PC or Laptop towards a machine that can play Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Armed Assault 2 - Some RAM maybe? thats it.

i havent got Killzone 2 yet but i plan on getting it once i have sorted out a bigger Hard drive so i cant really say anything about them.

 

I would be really intrested to see your comparison Magnus.
I just watched some HD videos of FC2 maxed out and it does not look as good as you're trying to say, not going to even bother with the rest.
Crysis was outdated a long time ago.

 

I am actually quite satisfied with my notebook. And I must say that Far Cry 2 looks just as good ( if not even better) on my notebook as on my brothers playsation 3.

(He was not playing the game on a HD-TV though!!)

 

Uncharted 2 looks very good, and you guys need to stop using crysis since that game is ancient.Atleast use arma 2 since its a lot more powerful than pitiful crysis.

 

Damn. Please don't say it's true!

I just ordered up a free 160GB PS3 Limited Ed. bundle. Mainly for the Blu-ray capabilities but was going to sample some of the exclusive PS3 game titles as well.

 

I have a PS3 and have had an Xbox 360 and my lappy kicks both their asses graphically. And Far cry 2 does look as good as he is saying. As for Crysis old or not it is still probably the best looking game around by a long way, and Warhead isn't to bad either. Killzone 2 is great for a console but just doesn't cut it when compared to PC.

 

You guys should see infamous it also has very superb graphics and says uses 1080p, well im basing it on the box.

 

Well said bsdowling, Crysis ancient? Well graphically it´s still the best looking game out there and yes it beats Arma 2 too graphically. Well I can name another game that beats both those consoles games. Stalker Clear Sky. Anyway Uncharted 2 won´t be the graphics king on PS3, that will be Crysis 2 anyway.

Also back on topic, what kind of laptop/desktop is it the thread started wants to compare too anyway? Desktop with a GTX 260, well we can go lower say desktop Core2Duo with a 8800GTX, 8800GT, 9800GTX etc, yes that is cheap to buy today and beats those consoles by far both graphically and performance wise. No offence to consoles they have their pretty moments I own the 360 myself. But saying that either of them compares against good laptops and desktops is just pure fanboyism.

Anyway back to thread topic so the thread don´t get locked down in a flamewar.

 

No. The GPU is a tad above a 7900GTX, Games get access to 7 heterogeneous processors: PPU + six SPUs - each SPU has 256 KB of memory for code and data. Most AI is done on the PPU, and a mid-end core 2 can easily kick its simply for OoE. Get a decent quad core and a powerful GPU and you can easily kick a PS3's . Games with parallel tasks and no support for GPGPU offloading, like GTA4 (Endorphin, animation, etc are all sent to SPUs) will need a quad core, though a 2.0 would be enough.

 

Well Akuma has been known to be a FANBOY for the console, even though his own rationale must tell him that a 8600 and a 2.6ghz c2d is better than any console.Period. I can build a desktop with a 3.0ghz quad core (intel), 260 gtx (868mb), SLI asus MB, 4gbRAM for 500$us. That system will dominate any console today. BTW i get cryostasis and crysis warhead free w/ the MB.

 

RSX (wiki). Actually according to this, the RSX (PS3 GPU) is a slow version of the 7800 core (128 bit bus in the RSX vs. 256 bit bus in the PC 7800-series).

My personal experience is that an 8600m GT can run games (Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Mass Effect, etc) as well as consoles (1280x800, high settings, no AA, 30+ FPS).

 

And that really is the point. The ps3 and xbox 360 are NOT for the enthusiast. They are made for the casual gamer. That being said, it is cheaper to get a ps3 or xbox, but to play games @ 720p or anything above will cost money ( IE LCD or LED tv --- atleast 4-700 US dollars for cheap hardware). The console is meant to be what it is -- an easily accessible gaming machine that is based on cheap technology. fOr some people this is fine, but i think we can all agree that PC id VASTLY superior, and as far as competitive gaming is concerned, the PC stands up to no one. Lets all face it, almost ALL of us have a PC, just throw in a better GFX card for 50 bucks, and well you have an entire entertainment system that is above and beyond any console.

 

No. Go to Beyond3d and ask around, or look at the user manual that comes with NVIDIA's FX Composer 2.5, it has a table comparing throughput of NV4X, G7X and RSX, with RSX beating all. With all due respect to the wikipedia article, I've been a registered PS3 dev since before the console launched. Don't take that as a "believe me because I say so" kind of statement; like I said go ask on Beyond3D - where tons of famous PS3 devs hang out.

 

Can you elaborate a little more or at least provide some links?

For example RSX beating NV4X, G7X.... which cards do you refer to? An 8400-GT or what?

 

Download FX Composer 2.5, and check the manual's "Analyzing shader performance" section. It has a table with shader throughputs for the NV4X, G7X card ranges and RSX. It does not cover G80, and a comparison would be unfair (as the G80 is a unified shader unit, and the maximum throughput for a pixel shader will be calculated assuming all shader units are dedicated to pixel processing, which is almost never.

 

http://talkplaystation.com/ps3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/

The ps3 uses a different architecture than a pc and it was made back in 05/06 so a comparison a very unfair.Ps3 is made just for games and pc is for many things so stop comparing a Ferrari to a Nissan.

 

Well... according to my opinion there's no other gaming console which has better performance than PS3. It's such a powerful console! Sure... there might be some computers with good performance when it comes to gaming but I think PS3 tops everything!

 

Simple truth is, as an owner of a decent laptop (and previously a decent desktop PC), xbox and ps3, is that yes the PC is superior end of; pc games apart from poor ports often run higher resolution, with better textures and effects, it does make a difference, and the frame rate difference with a decent pc can make a massive difference. Console standard 30fps can feel quite laggy in comparison, especially when you do get the occasional drop down to ~20fps on some games.

The caveat is the pc is more expensive, and a console is optimised considerably over it's lifespan; the GPU in the PS3 is basically an upgraded 7800 with some feature improvements (backed up by the PPC core of the PS3), whilst the GPU in the 360 is effectively somewhere between the X1800 and 2900, sharing some DX10 features, but not being fully DX10 compliant; neither are directly comparable as they're designed specifically for the console, but that is the rough jist of it.

That said, the comparisons are fair, look at a pc game like Crysis running on high settings and high resolution and it looks far sharper, clearer and more detailed than anything running on the PS3 or 360, even despite it being a 2007 pc game (and we're not even talking DX10 Very High mode here, which can run higher textures and effects [yes I know most can be hacked in on DX9 too!]).
The majority of PS3/360 games run at 500-720p and are then upscaled, with a few exceptions; but obviously you have to pay for the difference; however with the same game and an acceptable gaming pc which doesnt have to cost a bomb (especially when you factor in to get the best from a console you need a decent HDTV) you will typically find the PC game to A) Have a more fluid framerate B) Have sharper visuals C) Have higher quality textures, due to limitations with the consoles. Console games tend to get around the power differential by dropping resolution or effects....look at Star Ocean 4, it runs lower resolution and can look blurry, but textures look great for a console game because they've optimised for the lower resolution, or look at Gears of War 1, which features horrendous up close textures.

Hell, the original 2006/7 Stalker with the 2009 complete mod (lighting and texture upgrades) looks far superior to pretty much anything running on the consoles, as does Half Life 2, and the released expansions running the FakeFactory Cinematic mod; especially viewing them in movement rather than just a static screenshot, and both of which will run well on most systems on the market today, even a low end one, with a decent GPU slotted in from the midrange cards right now (9600s, 4650 etc)

Bottom line is the console is for a cheaper, or casual gamer, and require less effort; not to mention a lot of people forget the additional cost of a good HDTV to get the most out of the machines! The PC is more powerful, can run a *lot* better with a decent spec, and is more multi-talented, but costs more in line with expectations and the lack of hardware costs being offset.

 

No still the PS3 has a better CPU than the 360 but the 360 has a better GPU. No console is better than the other, games do run better on the 360 though this I mean multiplat games. But none of them stands a chance against any PC.

Also this is proven by all multiplat games looks much better on PC than the consoles. Look at Gears of War, GTA IV just to name a few. The latter with fps problems.

 

Right, I'm a fanboy because I dare to say something good about consoles in a PC forum.
You're all comparing simple PC components with console components, which cannot be done as I alerady stated but you just don't get it, do you? CELL isn't a cpu you can compare with todays Core 2 Duo's or Quad Cores. You cannot attain the same AI level in games with any processor in regular processor, because they are all built for regular PC's and the whole architecture is very different.
If you compare the numbers on paper and compare hardware parts one-by-one then sure, a simple C2D and 8700~8800GT with few GB's of ram should be enough, right? -_- But as similar threads have been here in past, you PC fanboys can't get it to your heads that a 299$ console can do more in games than your 999$ desktop.

Before you give me a "no u" type of reply or continue to call me a fanboy please take a hour to read what's so special about CELL. Why 512mb of RAM is enough.

 

You're right about the details but I still think PS3 looks better when I play it on my HDTV. I'm not a huge fan of playing games on a computer so I can't really say if the performance is better on a PC but for me PS3 is the best gaming console ever. I wish it had more games though...

 

Akuma read my response, the actuality is that while the Cell is very good at certain things, and is very good with certain code; it is NOT unilaterally more powerful than a desktop chip, RISC vs x86-64 are very different architectures, and both are better at differing things; I am also well aware that a console is designed very differently so parts cannot be compared 1:1, along with a lot of the memory on the consoles being of higher speed than that used in a desktop.
The other additional problem with the CELL design is that is very different from a conventional processor, so requires much higher levels of optimisation (in some ways it is rather similar to ATIs current shader designs) to get maximum utilisation out of it; the individual SPEs for example not being full processors.
I dont deny the PS3 is a powerful piece of kit; but in many ways (relevant especially to gamers) a PC is more powerful; and the PS3 depends heavily on whether the game is programmed well, to get more out of it than your average CPU; this is one of the reasons Valve do not develop PS3 games inhouse; they would have to retrain personell to develop for a highly different system and find it easier to optimise code for the PC/360.
Theoretical power and real-world power do not always translate 1:1 either.

 

Plug a decent PC into that HDTV and you may be surprised, higher detail levels along with controllable AA can look rather tasty

 

That's quite a serious laptop for someone who doesn't play Pc game's. There really isn't even a comparison between the two, Pc is in a different league. And I do have a Ps3 which I play on my 37" LG 1080p Lcd and if I plug my lappy in it genuinely looks loads better and to be honest playing on my lappy's internal 1920x1200 screen looks amazing.

 

Oh another thing I forgot to mention for the PC side, in much the same way the SPE offer performance enhancements for the PS3 in optimised code; the PC GPU manufacturers are also starting to offer similar accelleration through CUDA and OpenCL for the PC. Whilst its not heavily utilised as yet; this is another area where the PC will continue to grow in future years (for example I believe further support is included in the DX11 standard, could be wrong mind), and some of the current GPUs for the PC have some incredible processing power beyond 3d acceleration, it just has to be used, the upcoming 58 series GPUs for example will have somewhere near 2.5 Teraflops of processing potential, and as desktop multicore, CUDA and OpenCL continue develop, the PC one again offers terrifyingly high performance potential in future years.

 

Thats just what I was about to say. Vinyard you have a Clevo laptop w/ 280M and you cant compare that with your PS3????LOL.

 

Firstly Iam sure this has probably already been posted but it is a very well done video and worth a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk
The thing to realise about the PS3 and it's cell processor is that the Gpu is still what will actually render the image and if the cell processor is the most amazing thing ever then why include a standalone Gpu at all, surely if it's that amazing it could take on all the work. Or maybe not as it happen's because the Gpu is still the most important factor when it come's to image quality. And this is coming from someone who actually quite like's his PS3.

 

It's a video comparison of multiplatform games. Xbox360 architecture is basically the same as PC's. Most of the games compared on that video were first made on X360/PC and then ported to PS3.
When lead-platform is PS3 then multiplatformers look better on that console and vice-versa. It's easy to fool people who don't know about things like that with a single YouTube video.

 

We cannot be making these comparisons...

We are comparing two totally different things, regardless of the components, the fact of the matter is, you invest in what you get, ps3, for the beaut cost its come down to is excessively powerful, but the fact is, even for a fair price, you can construct a computer that can easily out do, the console in terms of quality, (i wouldnt let anything get in the way of how xbox live is, its brilliant haha).

Alex speaks the truth!
And long live ATI and Nvidia (As long as there both working)

 

Well said mate. That is the truth of the matter.

 

Why are you guys bashing the PS3 so much? It can play tetris just as good as when you play it on your 2000M GTXS or what ever its called... End of story the ps3 isnt x86 its a PPC system so theres no comparison.RSX was made like 3-4 yrs ago so stop comparing the new gpus.Plus the RSX has GDDR3 when you look at the tech sheet, go ask over at be3yond.One more thing the ps3 has XDR memory which your fancy 1000000 desktops dont even have which is very good when compared to todays memory types.

 

Does it matter, the hardware in both consoles is old? They can barely put up with 30 fps at 1280x720p anymore when devs are "maxing them out" as they say. I am not impressed with either console, this is because I have grown up with PC´s and continually invest money into my desktop and laptops.

I want high quality graphics at fast framerates and consoles don´t manage that. XDR Ram has nothing to come up with compared with todays hardware. Consoles is still poor man´s PC´s, the casual gamers. It´s just that when console people thinks that the PS3 is something out of this world I can´t shut up since it´s dead wrong.

 

On the otherhand, the PS3 is very bulky. And you need to buy a very expensive screen to be able to play it.

I got my 900€ Notebook, and a lot of games look even better on it than on the PS3.

Also, its lighter than the PS3. I can take it where ever I go. I can even use Internet, word and much more on it!

So if you think about it, a Notebook is just like a PS3 but much much better

 

I wanna see Crysis 2 in PS3 and PC with cry engine 3 maxed out.

 

From what I've seen, AI is actually hard to do on Cell - AI code tends to have quite a bit of branching and cache thrashing, which out-of-order CPUs handle an order of magnitude better than Cell. Pure number crunching, however, is something SPUs excel at (Animation, physics, etc). And BTW, that article about the PS3 ram is so wrong it hurts. It's written from a hypothetical universe where interconnect busses have infinite bandwidth. I'd kill to live there. Get serious information at serious places, like CellPerformance @ B3D, say .