any notebook with graphics on par with PS3?

I was just wondering because i read playstation 3 uses Nvidia based Graphics 256MB DDR3 @ 700Mhz. and if any notebooks come close at all.

 

Yes. Computer graphics are far stronger than console graphics, because the resolution on console graphics are far lower than computer screens. With the recent introduction of High Definition, some console resolution have increased to up to 1920x1080, which does require a lot of graphics processing power, but those results can be easily achieved on current higher end gaming laptops (with X1800, X1900, 7800, 7900 graphics cards). As time progresses, current console graphics will remain same while computer graphics will advance, until the next console comes out.

 

Heh.

First of all, a PS3 has lesser power then a Xbox 360.

Secondly, notebooks have lesser power then desktops.

A PS3 has a neutered, less good looking version of Fear, while at the same time, so would most notebooks.

But then again, their are alot of games on PS3 that you could not run on a notebook.

Notebooks don't really have a large number of processors running at 700 mhz, hell, my desktop doesn't run at 700 mhz... (well, barely)

Not only that, but a PS3 doesn't have run all the stuff in a background. Because of this, any console can run most stuff faster.

 

The 700 MHz is referring to the Memory clock speeds on the PS3's GPU(s).

 

EDRAM pwns all-console>

 

the ps3 gpu is based off the nvidia desktop 7800 series so notebook can match it in graphics power. however the cell processor can blow away ours. the ps3 is noted for having especially powerful physics systems.

 

I disagree with cell being "more powerful" that a current top of the line AMD/Intel processor. Cell is specifically designed to process physics instructions, so of course it's more powerful in that regard; it would fail in comparison as an all-around CPU. The same is true for GPUs... they're technically 100+ times more powerful than a desktop CPU, but only because their streamlined instruction set is meant to process polygons. Desktop CPUs are essentially crippled because they need to be able to efficiently process an incredibly large, diverse set of instructions.

But really... how fast can we type a word doc, or surf the web... people should focus more on purchasing to their requirements instead of buying some of the absurd solutions out there.

 

PS3 "Deluxe" quick specs:
multi-core Cell CPU
built-in PPU (Ageia Phys-X)
GPU: par with 7800/7900 GTX (even 8800 GTX)
Resolution: 1920x1080p
Output: HDMI & legacy PSX/PS2 video connections
Optical Drive: DVD & Blu-Ray

Current Rig:
My notebook is has a 7800 GTX and a WUXGA LCD (1920x1200) and I play high-end games (Oblivion, FEAR, Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfigher) at all Ultra High and full WUXGA resolution. It performs perfect with no hiccups. The only thing that I have been asking Ageia is to try and release a mobile version PPU (Physics Processing Unit) for future games... like Unreal Tournament 2007 and Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway. They looked awesome at E3 2006. And down the line (when its cheaper) I'll probably upgrade my notebooks videocard to the nVidia 7950 GTX w/ 512mb DDR3.

So I feel happy with my notebook, but if I were to get a desktop, I would probably get a quad-core compatible motherboard, DX10 card, PPU card, and WD Raptors. Then get some HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drives when they are available. That would be on par with (or much better than) the next-gen consoles.

FYI: If you dont know it yet, the PS3 costs about $864 to make, and they are selling it for $600 (so they are losing over $200 per unit). They are selling a super-computer for the price of an entry-level one. I believe that they are hoping to get as much market share of the next-gen consumers as possible... especially since Xbox360 has been out for some time now.

Game On People,
-Gophn

 

Keep in mind though, that a PS3 is only $600 for the deluxe model ($400 for the standard?)--and it has a Blu Ray drive in it as a bonus.

 

Gophn, the price of that system would strain even NASA's allowance.

If you were to build it right now, of course.

 

Apparently, people are willing to shoot others just to get a PS3. Sad. This country is circling the toilet hole.

 

And it runs Linux. Yellow Dog and I think Fedora Core. Hook up a USB keyboard and mouse and you've got a VERY powerful $600 computer.

And about the processor not being as powerful, I'm gonna have to argue that. The PS3 was designed to run a web browser, multimedia programs, and a Linux OS (it was originally supposed to ship with Linux preinstalled if I remember correctly). Not to mention the fact that it has 7 cores running at over 3GHz. It can't be that weak.

 

It'll run any PPC Linux distro, really. Bang, $1000AU Supercomputer. I'm getting one for sure, number cruncher by day, console by night!

 

Hey, I didn't know that, thanks for the tid-bit of information. Very interesting indeed.

Yes, I heard about that. Honestly, I don't know what the hell is wrong with people sometimes. That is just super messed up. What is the world coming to?

 

The gpu might be equivilent to the 7900 gtx in one sense, but it is more advanced because its dx 10 compatible.

Thats where a ps3 exceeds all available computers. It is the most powerful gpu outside of this 8800 gtx gpu and more powerful than any notebook.

I am certainly a ps3 customer but in about 6 months.

 

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

this mite help

 

I'm surprised they're not losing more money on the hardware. Everyone knows you don't make money on consoles, you make money on the games and peripherals.

 

They are laying down a major multi-headed bet with the PS3. They are taking a loss partly because they think the PS3 will help Blu-Ray get the advantage in the whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle. By counting on the PS3's sales, they will have an installed base of Blu-Ray owners. They also are expecting to make a lot of the loss back through gaming licenses. It's risky and considering the failures of BetaMax, MiniDisc, Network walkman, and UMD, it might be a sign of bad things to come. Word has it Sony is in trouble and the battery fiasco certainly didn't help.

That is sad.

 

So far the early reviews are fairly bad.

Comparing Tony Hawks Project 8, on the Ps3 vs the Xbox 360, not only does the PS3 version not have any online multiplayer - way to go on that one - but the Xbox 360 version whilst looking the same is significantly faster.

I'd say Sony weren't too happy with that.

 

7 slave cores that are not as powerful as normal ones. The lowest clocked quad core from intel will smash it around and an 8800gtx will smash the graphics in the PS3, ofc the ps3 is cheaper than that =)

Consoles - The poor mans PC.

 

well after reading that article

the xbox 360 has the most powerful gpu in any machine.

So while it has a lower cpu it does seem to have better specs. I wonder if there is some sort of test to compare them.

It says the cpu is half as fast but the gpu is a version of atis new 8800 type card.

maybe the 360 is the way to go after all.

 

Early reviews of games that are multi-platform swing towards the 360.

but I think more or less the machines are so similar that outside of tech sheets and waffle there won't be any significant differences in the quality of aaa titles for each platform.

 

Err, no? Where on earth did you read that?
The PS3's GPU pretty much *is* a 7900. It has a different memory interface, some different memory glued on, possibly some differerent clock speeds, but that's it. It is a G71 chip. No DX10 capabilities, no unified shaders, no geometry shaders.

Which means that a year ago, you could buy a PC that was about its equal. Now, you can buy one that completely slaughters the PS3.

 

hehe... my Notebook specs totally slaughter the PS3s in GPU power... who needs 256 RAM when you've got 512 GDDR3 RAM with 575/700 to boot and 2GBs of RAM?

Only one thing though..... they'll never make a FFXIII or MGS4 for the PC.... and the XBOX 360!!! Take THAT XBOX fanboys!
(sobs....)

 

Hellz Yeah, another Clevo M570U (a.k.a. Sager 5760, Aviator CX7, Rock Xtreme CTX, etc.) owner is right, that particualr rig is probably best 17" gaming notebook on the market.

solarmystic, the only thing downside to your notebook's configuration is that you didnt get the WUXGA (1920x1200) screen. Since True-HD 1080p requires a screen with at least 1920x1080, which the PS3 will have games running at.. as well as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies.

 

I refuse to touch an Xbox simply on a fundamental basis. I was considering, but not anymore. I would like the PS3, but yeah, early reports aren't as good as I was hoping. I'll wait till next year and then see what things look like then. I'll probably just have to get a Wii to hold me over in the meantime.

 

Go Nintendo!!! Heh heh!! But I'll probably try getting a PS3 when they're IN STOCK and people arent going crazy to get them.

 

I know

I really hope no one buys this 2000 dollar PS3 off ebay. I really think its way too overprice. I understand its econ 101, supply and demand but its really not worth the price.

Anywayz, I personally will get a Wii because thats it seems more user friendly. I can picture my friends coming over my house and play Wii sports together, but I can't picture my friends coming over and play some super high techy PS3.

 

number cruncher? what is that?

 

Yes I was mistaken about the ps3 gpu.

I was talking about the xbox 360 one.

Aparently even though its stats make it seem more humble than a 8800 gtx, in reality it beats it. Its at least similar and better than any notebook gpu.

the xbox 360 gpu, not the ps3 one.

 

The 360 GPU isn't all that special either. It has unified shaders, yes, but I don't think it supports DX10 features such as geometry shaders. It has 10MB embedded RAM for frame buffer, which is great for the 360's fixed resolution, but would be useless for rendering at higher resolutions like a high-end PC would. 10MB just isn't enough there. But on the 360, it means practically free AA and other effects. Very nice stuff.

It's nothing near the 8800 though. It's ancient in GPU terms. (A full year since it was launched). It has fewer shader units, is clocked lower and has less RAM. Still a nice GPU though, and very well designed for the 360. But it's no 8800.

 

You guys got it all wrong. Nobody was shot because of a PS3. Some thug wanted the people in line to hand over their cash and valuables. He opened fire when one of them angrily refused. Which I can understand. Imagine having waited in line for over 48-hrs. You're hungry, tired, cold and stinking to high heaven and some punk want to rob you!!!

 

: CLEVO D900K (Sager 9750, Alienware m7700a) :: 17" WUXGA (1920x1200) - AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (saving for Dual-Core Opteron) - nVidia Geforce 7800 GTX (3Dmark06 Score: 4500 @ OC'ed) - 2048 MB Kingston SoDIMM DDR400 - 120gb SATA Seagate - Pioneer DVR-K16 DVD+-RW - TSSTcorp CD-R/DVD-Rom
---------------------------------------------------------------

That's the notebook that I wanted, but I didn't have the money. If I would've known that 64bit was so frickin over-rated and that multi-core cpus would be so important for gameing, I would've waited and saved my money for the D900K instead of getting my Asus z81sp. Boy do I feel like a sucker. The D900K can be upgraded to meet all of the recommended specs to play Crysis (as yours does).

by the way if anybody sees anymore post by that punk 64bit misleading about how 64bit is gods gift to gaming, tell him to shut up up for me.

 

No need to be upset. The z81 is still a very powerful system. I'm sure it'll play Crysis on very nice settings.

 

Wow, didnt realize that you copy and pasted my Sig.

Technically my notebook still has a good amount of upgradeability, but when I decided to get it back in March, I really wanted a Intel core duo, but it didnt exist yet.

I am still happy with my purchase, but my back might not think so... even with a Kensington Contour Backpack

 

I 'm sure it'll play Crysis on very nice settings.
---------------------------------------------

r u sure? like i said in my other post, my current rig only meets the game's min requirments. As long as I can play the game at a decent framerate, I don't care about having to turn the settings down (if it's anything like farcry, the real meat and bones will be the AI and gameplay), but the way games are these days I'm not counting on anything.

but my back might not think so... even with a Kensington Contour Backpack
--------------------------------------------------------------

How much does it way? My z81 is 9.9lbs and the power supply adds a bit. I don't really mind though, it's all about performance for me (z81 gave me the most bang for my buck at the time). I'd get a desktop but you can't fold them up and take them with you.

 

The D900 chassis weighs in at like 12lbs I think.

 

the graphics processing in the PS3 is better than any current notebook! Just look at the transistor count on the PS3 graphics cards...
the only thing that can come close to is is the 8800 from Nvidia.

the reason is that the PS3 has been specially designed for gaming so everything...RAM, CPU, graphics, has been optimised for games.

 

Console games only have better graphics/performance because when it was made it was optimized for specific hardware. I mean if all PC owners had a E6600 and a 8800GTX and games were specifically made for this hardware configuration you'd see PC games that's beyond next-gen consoles.

 

Who cares about the transistor count?
That doesn't mean better graphics. (In any case, the PS3's GPU isn't that big. It's the Cell that has a big transistor count, and that's because it's terribly designed (for gaming).
So no, not everything has been specially designed for gaming. A regular PC CPU is much better than a Cell for that.

 

i dunno if this was sarcastic or what but i'll reply to it anyways

number cruncher is a computer that does nothing but calculates simulations and math. like researchers of protein folding. a supercomputer or cluster basically.

BTW does anyone know actual benchmarks of the PS3 in linpack performance?

 

my take after reading this thread is the xbox 360 is better? I am thinking of purchasing on either the 360 or the ps3... Halo isn't really a factor for me..but what is is game quantity it seems that you have more choice in games if you buy the ps3, which system is better? (360?)

 

We haven't seen enough showing from the PS3 to know yet, either on hardware or software side. You could, however, make an argument for the 360 based on the power consumption and low yields of Cell. 360 isn't much of a power saver itself, though.

 

It's hard to say which is "better". Are we talking about graphics performance?
If so, there's no big difference. I'd expect the 360 to inch ahead in some situations, but the PS3 will probably win some as well

If we're talking about games in general, I'd go with the 360 from a technical point of view, simply because there's more general-purpose processing power, which may boost AI and other gameplay-related parts of a game. Will it make a noticeable difference in games? Probably not. (Especially since most games are cross-platform anyway, so the developers are biased towards writing code that will run on both consoles, even if it means that one of the consoles isn't pushed to its limits)

But what it comes down to is of course the games. From what I've seen so far, the PS3 doesn't really have many must-have games. What are we down to, the only PS3-exclusive games are Final Fantasy and MGS?
The 360 has far more exclusive games, and far more games available overall. But if you prefer the PS3's games, then buy a PS3.

 

I am not sure which games I as I have not really gotten into console gaming. I heard that although the Xbox has a couple must haves the PS has many more titles. Although due to pricing of the console and research up to this point I am leaning towards the Xbox 360, I am dissapointed though because of waiting for the playstation 3 in immense anticipation it seems to not come to my full expectations.

 

You also have to take into account the non-gaming features of each machine as well. Like for instance the the PS3 has proper backwards compatibility whereas the X360 doesn't.

Or the fact that Sony allow you to install alternate OS's on your console, further broadening the scope of the PS3's usefulness.

It all adds up, and that's why I'll be waiting until March for a PS3. A new desktop AND a games console in one $1000 purchase .

 

The PS3'S gpu was said to be more powerful than two 6800'S running in SLI, so in essence, it is a 780GTX archeticture. While the 360's GPU has 48 pixel pipelines, with UNIFIED shading. The 360 is the all around more powerful console. And to answer the question, The GO7950 GTX, is way more powerful than the GPU in the PS3.The PS3'S GPU was revolutinry when it was announced..... 2 years ago. Now in this day and age, the Computer is way ahead of the PS3. And the 7 SPU'S on the PS3 arent normal computers like the Xbox 360 Triple Core architecture, which is truly 3 sepearate CPU'S, the SPU'S aren't nearly half as powerful as sony leads them to be. I can tell you for sure a Core 2 Duo Extreme edition will crush the Cell. Cell is made for physics, and not regular office work, multimedia, and games. The 360 is the best all around console, The PS3 getting the nod in the way of CPU just because of it's 8, SPU'S, and the 360 gets the nod in the GPU department.

Actually no, sony doesn't allow you to put sepearate OS's, can you give a link to your assumption?

And the PS3 does not have "proper" backwards compatibility, over 200 PS2 titles dont work with it, and around 100 PS1 titles don't work with it.

And it is rumored that MGS4 might come to the 360. And I won't be surprised if Microsoft gets Final Fantasy as well, by paying for it. There is virtually no benefit to Developing for PS3. No one has one, and it seems it will be a long time till they are freely available to get. But of course, this was the case with the 360 when it first launched.

And actually, NO GPU out now has UNIFIED SHADERS, and it is closer to an 8800 they you think.

 

I really wish that a 3DMark test could be done on the two consoles to settle this arguement once and for all. I have a 360 and I absolutly love the thing. My friend was one of those people who waited in line and got a one right away for a riddiclous $600, and he dosent even really play it yet. He and I have argued ourselves blue in the face over which is better. I have him cornered to saying that he dosent like the 360 because he dosent like the controller. I mean from reading this its clear the the Cell is a bust from what its was hoped to be, and the 360 has the better GPU. Along with the 360 exclusive games like Halo. I mean that same friend of mine is one of those people who hats FPS's and halo for some reason, but theres a reason why halo is one of the best selling games of all time. I say overall the 360 is the better system. You can argue hardware all day, but when it comes down to it they are going to look very very similar, and the games are what are going to win the war in the end. But again, is it at all possible for some orgnization like IGN who has tons of PS3's and 360's right now to run a 3DMark test on them? I would really really like to see the results.

 

No the PS3's PGU is based off the 7800 not the 7900.

 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/739/739688p1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZXcuhJkwx4