# ps3 performance equivalent to.. ?



## UpskirtHayley

what you think ps3 equivalent to pc spec?

although many people said ps3 gpu is made from 7800gtx tech but ill say the power performance of the ps3 is equivalent to:

- *three 8800 ultra (tri-sli)
- 16gb ram
- phenom 9600*



ps3 games is 100% playable perfromance even if it isnt 60fps. play the same game in pc version on your hd4670/2gb ram/q9550 and you cant play it on maximum eye candy full potential without getting deep stutter.




so what you think of the ps3 power performance is equivalent to? just want to hear what you say.


----------



## bm23

heh, i asked the same question. wikipedia said something about the ps3 having 2 256mb RAM. not sure what that means exactly. and oh, i play armored core for answer and there are occasional lag, during intensive battle and stuff. and to add on to the questions, if i may, the specs that are listed for the ps3, except for its CPU, are pretty average. so how is it possible that the ps3 can run "heavy" games?


----------



## UpskirtHayley

i think ps3 specs dont mean nothing. especially the 256mb.... i think its power is more greater than the spec. 512mb system ram on pc cant play many 2006+ games. i think pc and ps3 have different tech.

armor core for answer has ocasional lag when intense battle? but it is playable right? not like dark messiah on 8500gt/1gb ram/x2 4400+ max setting.


----------



## Shane

you cant realy compare a console to a Pc,The Ps3 uses a Cell processor and is desighned for gaming.

i suppose you could compare the graphics though,i also heard its the same as 7800gtx.




> - three 8800 ultra (tri-sli)
> - 16gb ram
> - phenom 9600



i doubt it has the same gpu power as Tril sli and no way does it have 16gb ram.


----------



## Dropkickmurphys

with consoles the games are made to be effective with the hardware that comes in the specific console.. where as a pc you buy the parts to fit the game... I think thats why consoles can perform so well.

as Nevakonaza said, its difficult to compare the specs. even if you built a PC with the specs highlighted in the first post, I doubt you could run games as effectively as you could on a PS3 or whatever...


----------



## hpi

Dropkickmurphys said:


> with consoles the games are made to be effective with the hardware that comes in the specific console.. where as a pc you buy the parts to fit the game... I think thats why consoles can perform so well.
> 
> as Nevakonaza said, its difficult to compare the specs. even if you built a PC with the specs highlighted in the first post, I doubt you could run games as effectively as you could on a PS3 or whatever...



Spot on.


----------



## emac227

ive heard that there has yet to be a game made that has used all the ps3 potential and i can believe it because i dont get any lag when playing grand theif auto 4 and the fans dont really kick in till i play a game for like 5 minutes  


I LOVE MY PS3


----------



## gamerman4

The PS3 on linux runs the equivalent to a Pentium 3 because Sony put a hypervisor on the GPU so linux cant access it and it runs like molasses. Also you couldn't put Windows on it because the CPU is PPC based. The GPU has 256MB of vram and the system has 256MB of its own RAM so it wouldn't make an awesome computer but it's great for gaming.


----------



## hpi

PS3 has been said to be a home super computer that's better then the majority of home computers.


----------



## gamerman4

hpi said:


> PS3 has been said to be a home super computer that's better then the majority of home computers.



It's great for folding and cluster processing but as a general purpose computer, no.


----------



## G25r8cer

Nevakonaza said:


> you cant realy compare a console to a Pc,The Ps3 uses a Cell processor and is desighned for gaming.
> 
> i suppose you could compare the graphics though,i also heard its the same as 7800gtx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt it has the same gpu power as Tril sli and no way does it have 16gb ram.



Agree


----------



## gamerman4

UpskirtHayley said:


> what you think ps3 equivalent to pc spec?
> 
> although many people said ps3 gpu is made from 7800gtx tech but ill say the power performance of the ps3 is equivalent to:
> 
> - *three 8800 ultra (tri-sli)
> - 16gb ram
> - phenom 9600*
> 
> 
> 
> ps3 games is 100% playable perfromance even if it isnt 60fps. play the same game in pc version on your hd4670/2gb ram/q9550 and you cant play it on maximum eye candy full potential without getting deep stutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what you think of the ps3 power performance is equivalent to? just want to hear what you say.



You have obviously never played a PS3. PS3 games have a maximum of about 2x Antialiasing (if it has it at all), shoddy anisotropic filtering...it doesnt even compare to a PC gaming rig.



heres a comparison from
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html?sid=6202552

Fallout 3
PS3:





PC:





On many games, the Xbox 360 looks better than the PS3 but neither console could ever compare to a PC of the same generation.


----------



## Dropkickmurphys

Different consoles / PCs will render graphics differently, on Eurogamer there is a comparison of CoD:WW graphics between the PC/Xbox360/PS3 versions, and you can see where certain areas of graphical content have been edited to fit the consoles / PC better... at the end of the day, they are all better at some things...but games on the consoles will usually be overall better quality cause of what I stated earlier in the thread, they are made to match the console, where as with the PC you have to build it to the spec of the game and the game itself hasnt been made to perform perfectly with your specific hardware.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

PC's will ALWAYS be able to give better graphics. But if you look at it from the price vs performance PC's can't touch consoles. 
I myself tho would rather have a great gaming rig which can do many other things than just game tho. Plus as you can see in gamermans post the difference is huge when you play with all settings maxed.


----------



## Stildawn

PS3 looks like crap to the games I play on my rig. And mine isnt even that top of the line.


----------



## Vizy

doesn't a ps3 have like 8 cores? Like 7 cores dedicated to performance and a core to keep all the other cores working properly?

Or is that just Bull?


----------



## Motoxrdude

gamerman4 said:


> You have obviously never played a PS3. PS3 games have a maximum of about 2x Antialiasing (if it has it at all), shoddy anisotropic filtering...it doesnt even compare to a PC gaming rig.
> 
> 
> 
> heres a comparison from
> http://www.gamespot.com/features/6202552/index.html?sid=6202552
> 
> Fallout 3
> PS3:
> 
> PC:


On many games, the Xbox 360 looks better than the PS3 but neither console could ever compare to a PC of the same generation.[/QUOTE]
Eh, that doesn't look the same at all. I just went there on fallout 3 and it looks a lot better. You sure that was on a 1080P resolution (yes, I know fallout 3 is only 760p)?

The reason consoles run so much better then Pcs spec per spec is because they don't have to run a compatibility layer. All the hardware is identical so programers only have to program for that platform. For example, try and compare assembly language to C++. Which one executes faster?


----------



## gamerman4

Motoxrdude said:


> Eh, that doesn't look the same at all. I just went there on fallout 3 and it looks a lot better. You sure that was on a 1080P resolution (yes, I know fallout 3 is only 760p)?
> 
> The reason consoles run so much better then Pcs spec per spec is because they don't have to run a compatibility layer. All the hardware is identical so programers only have to program for that platform. For example, try and compare assembly language to C++. Which one executes faster?



The list of games that are actually rendered at 1080p on either PS3 or Xbox is horribly small. I'm having trouble understanding what you said. What doesn't look the same at all? I also wasn't arguing spec for spec, I was arguing the processing equivalent as the OP wanted. I don't even know why you quoted me, I didn't say anything related to what you just argued. I was just stating that the PS3 could not possibly equal a computer with the specs the OP said.


----------



## Motoxrdude

gamerman4 said:


> The list of games that are actually rendered at 1080p on either PS3 or Xbox is horribly small. I'm having trouble understanding what you said. What doesn't look the same at all? I also wasn't arguing spec for spec, I was arguing the processing equivalent as the OP wanted. I don't even know why you quoted me, I didn't say anything related to what you just argued. I was just stating that the PS3 could not possibly equal a computer with the specs the OP said.



I just quoted the pictures you posted. When I went on my PS3 to play fallout 3, it looked nothing like the picture that you posted; it looked exactly what the PC one looked like.


----------



## gamerman4

Motoxrdude said:


> I just quoted the pictures you posted. When I went on my PS3 to play fallout 3, it looked nothing like the picture that you posted; it looked exactly what the PC one looked like.



Wow that was a really required missing piece of information. Regardless, the PS3 barely has any antialiasing so jaggies are everywhere. I don't know what TV you have but if it is not a computer monitor then it has a large dot pitch, This helps hide the jagged edges. It may look fine but I'm sure it would look like gamespots screenshot if you actually took a screenshot yourself. Regardless, the PS3 doesn't have as much to process in comparison with a PC game (unless the game is a crappy port to PC).


----------



## Motoxrdude

gamerman4 said:


> Wow that was a really required missing piece of information. Regardless, the PS3 barely has any antialiasing so jaggies are everywhere. I don't know what TV you have but if it is not a computer monitor then it has a large dot pitch, This helps hide the jagged edges. It may look fine but I'm sure it would look like gamespots screenshot if you actually took a screenshot yourself. Regardless, the PS3 doesn't have as much to process in comparison with a PC game (unless the game is a crappy port to PC).



Yeah, I've noticed that to. I hate the lack AA and AF.


----------



## CdnAudiophile

Motoxrdude said:


> Yeah, I've noticed that to. I hate the lack AA and AF.



They would never be able to get playable framerates with it with the technology they have now. I wonder what the fps actual is in most of these games. If it is a nice constant FPS or is jumpy like computers..


----------



## bm23

i dont think FPS is constant for ps3. when i play games, i occasional have lags.


----------



## 3uL

Most games in ps3 is optimized for ps3 hardware. Games developer can test the games in same hardware and all ps3 is same. So, developer have no problem about hardware compatibility. The problem comes in pc hardware. Most pc in the world is assembled with different hardware when it come to different people. That the problem. Developer can only optimized the games using their hardware, which is differ from us. Thats why pc games cannot achieve it maximum potential in our pc.


----------



## hpi

Game developers use top of the line hardware and a lot of hardcore pc enthusiasts have just those kind of system and can achieve the games full potential.


----------



## 3uL

That why I said that the problem. Actually our pc is even better than ps3. It just the problem.


----------



## Hugh9191

PS3 CPU is clocked at 3.2 ghz and it's an IBM Cell processor.

The XBox 360 also has an IBM Cell 3.2 ghz processor however the XBox one has 3 cores on one die.


----------



## ronster667

a original xbox has 64 mb of ram i know that because ive seen people upgrade it on youtube

and it runs games that look very nice fine

no way the ps3 could even use 16 gigs of ram
and the ps3 laggs alot to if your doing more then 2 things


----------



## XanderCage

My version of the truth:

PC: There is no way anyone could even attempt to argue, that a PS3 OR XBOX 360 has more computing capabilities than modern PCs.

PS3, XBOX 360: Due to universal configurations game developers can set predefined settings at which they feel their product will run best. The most noticeable setting that developers change, is AA and AF, it is extremely noticeable that when comparing a PS3 or XBOX 360 game to a pc the pc has superior AA settings. However most of the time, games will run with smooth framrates due to the optimization that was performed by the developers.

Winner? US. Depending on what your needs are you can chose a system that suits you.


----------



## 3uL

XanderCage said:


> My version of the truth:
> 
> PC: There is no way anyone could even attempt to argue, that a PS3 OR XBOX 360 has more computing capabilities than modern PCs.
> 
> PS3, XBOX 360: Due to universal configurations game developers can set predefined settings at which they feel their product will run best. The most noticeable setting that developers change, is AA and AF, it is extremely noticeable that when comparing a PS3 or XBOX 360 game to a pc the pc has superior AA settings. However most of the time, games will run with smooth framrates due to the optimization that was performed by the developers.
> 
> Winner? US. Depending on what your needs are you can chose a system that suits you.



Agree


----------



## G25r8cer

3ul said:


> agree



+2


----------



## Justin

emac227 said:


> ive heard that there has yet to be a game made that has used all the ps3 potential and i can believe it because i dont get any lag when playing grand theif auto 4 and the fans dont really kick in till i play a game for like 5 minutes



aye. i read somewhere before that the creator of gran turismo 5 only used 20% of the ps3's potential.


----------



## tlarkin

Dropkickmurphys said:


> with consoles the games are made to be effective with the hardware that comes in the specific console.. where as a pc you buy the parts to fit the game... I think thats why consoles can perform so well.
> 
> as Nevakonaza said, its difficult to compare the specs. even if you built a PC with the specs highlighted in the first post, I doubt you could run games as effectively as you could on a PS3 or whatever...



Which is exactly why OS X is more stable on a Mac because they design everything.  The Cell processor boasts like 6 or 7 cores, and once developers can utilize those cores they will start threading code to them.  As of now the PS3 is no more powerful than the 360 because the developers can't take advantage of everything yet.  Which is one of the downfalls of the PS3.  It is such a huge leap forward in hardware the developers can't stay up with it.  

Which is one reason why Sony lost like 1.1 billion dollars last year.


----------



## gamerman4

Sadly the "potential" is limited by the paltry 256MB of ram available to the system (with the other 256 for the GFX chip). They could lessen the memory use by utilizing procedural textures on some objects (obviously you couldn't do it with everything but every bit counts, anything repetitive could use procedural texturing, grass, tree bark, heck...the entire tree, anything far in the background, etc..) and free up some memory for advanced post-processing effects like 2x AA at least. Most games that look awesome are only available in 720p because the lower res frees up memory in order to add everything there that makes it look great, an example being Metal Gear Solid 4.
The nice thing about saying something has not reached its "potential" is that in order to prove it, someone would have to make a tech demo (and a PS3 SDK isn't cheap.)


----------



## bm23

jnskyliner34 said:


> aye. i read somewhere before that the creator of gran turismo 5 only used 20% of the ps3's potential.



no way!! i saw game footage of GT5 prologue and the graphic is just amazing. had i not seen the word GT5 at the corner of the screen, i would have thought that its a video of an actual race. to think that this is only 1/5 of what a ps3 can do, imagine what can happen if its used to its fullest potential.


----------



## tlarkin

gamerman4 said:


> Sadly the "potential" is limited by the paltry 256MB of ram available to the system (with the other 256 for the GFX chip). They could lessen the memory use by utilizing procedural textures on some objects (obviously you couldn't do it with everything but every bit counts, anything repetitive could use procedural texturing, grass, tree bark, heck...the entire tree, anything far in the background, etc..) and free up some memory for advanced post-processing effects like 2x AA at least. Most games that look awesome are only available in 720p because the lower res frees up memory in order to add everything there that makes it look great, an example being Metal Gear Solid 4.
> The nice thing about saying something has not reached its "potential" is that in order to prove it, someone would have to make a tech demo (and a PS3 SDK isn't cheap.)



You are forgetting one huge factor on which you can not compare it to a PC.  It is not running Windows, or any full blown OS really.  Therefore, it probably has almost all of that memory available instead of a bloated OS and all it's services running eating away at RAM.

It is designed for one task, to play game and bluray dvds.  I mean you can't compare it to a Gaming PC and you can't compare it spec for spec to what a PC would run vs what it would run.


----------



## gamerman4

tlarkin said:


> You are forgetting one huge factor on which you can not compare it to a PC.  It is not running Windows, or any full blown OS really.  Therefore, it probably has almost all of that memory available instead of a bloated OS and all it's services running eating away at RAM.
> 
> It is designed for one task, to play game and bluray dvds.  I mean you can't compare it to a Gaming PC and you can't compare it spec for spec to what a PC would run vs what it would run.



I did not forget that but regardless, more RAM would help because textures get large and when you go to 1080, you need even more ram to process even more things on the screen (since with the upgrade from 720 to 1080, you would want higher res textures). With the addition of a web browser, movie and video player, etc... it is NOT designed for one task but more of a multimedia center. It is running a basic OS, and if you have ever played on a PS3, you will notice it lags quite a bit when you try to open the main menu when a game is running (to the point sometimes that your PS3 can lock up). Crashes are the result of a fight over resources and in the PS3s case, it is definitely not lacking in the CPU department, so it is most likely the RAM.


----------



## tlarkin

gamerman4 said:


> I did not forget that but regardless, more RAM would help because textures get large and when you go to 1080, you need even more ram to process even more things on the screen (since with the upgrade from 720 to 1080, you would want higher res textures). With the addition of a web browser, movie and video player, etc... it is NOT designed for one task but more of a multimedia center. It is running a basic OS, and if you have ever played on a PS3, you will notice it lags quite a bit when you try to open the main menu when a game is running (to the point sometimes that your PS3 can lock up). Crashes are the result of a fight over resources and in the PS3s case, it is definitely not lacking in the CPU department, so it is most likely the RAM.



Is that due to the hardware limitations or to the developers writing sloppy code?  I assume a lot of brilliant people were involved in the design of the PS3.

I have seen palm pilots run apache and actually serve websites.  I have also seen the most sophisticated PC run like crap with a botched install of an OS.

I don't think Sony would spend billions of dollars on their console and SDK and over look something as simple as not enough system memory.  I think the developers are more to blame for this than anything, and they aren't willing to learn new methods to code for radical new hardware, and for that I don't entirely blame them.  I think the PS3 was a bad marketing decision by Sony, and that they should have not put that much hardware in the console to begin with.


----------



## gamerman4

tlarkin said:


> Is that due to the hardware limitations or to the developers writing sloppy code?  I assume a lot of brilliant people were involved in the design of the PS3.
> 
> I have seen palm pilots run apache and actually serve websites.  I have also seen the most sophisticated PC run like crap with a botched install of an OS.
> 
> I don't think Sony would spend billions of dollars on their console and SDK and over look something as simple as not enough system memory.  I think the developers are more to blame for this than anything, and they aren't willing to learn new methods to code for radical new hardware, and for that I don't entirely blame them.  I think the PS3 was a bad marketing decision by Sony, and that they should have not put that much hardware in the console to begin with.



I think both are to blame here but Sony really isn't making it easy for programmers. Microsoft gave 10MB of super-fast RAM to the GPU, with 512MB of normal ram to be shared between everything. This makes for better use of RAM. The PS3 has a forced divider between the two so if the developers don't use all 256MB of RAM in the GPU or system, then it is wasted and unable to be used by the other component. Also, Sony over-complicated everything by putting the cell cpu in the PS3, not only did it make it more difficult to code for, it costs a lot more money than the Xenon in the 360, without much to show for it since the 360 has been shown to be roughly equal graphics-wise. Now this could be because the Xenon is easier to code for and thus developers are able to more utilize its "potential" then it is Sony's fault or it could be that the Xbox 360 is just as good at processing information as the PS3 . The PS3 has a lot of limitations for programmers that are actually the fault of the Cell architecture.


----------



## Justin

bm23 said:


> no way!! i saw game footage of GT5 prologue and the graphic is just amazing. had i not seen the word GT5 at the corner of the screen, i would have thought that its a video of an actual race. to think that this is only 1/5 of what a ps3 can do, imagine what can happen if its used to its fullest potential.



true. but you have to add to the fact that there isn't much going on at a race. just the cars, scenery and people. there aren't any explosions, falling buildings and such. though i heard a damage system will be included in the full game.


----------



## Ramodkk

I would compare the PS3 to a comp with:

E8400
4GB PC2-6400
9800GTX+


----------



## ducis

ramodkk said:


> I would compare the PS3 to a comp with:
> 
> E8400
> 4GB PC2-6400
> 9800GTX+



I think thats a little generous the comp in you sig can run crysis, I ps3 would never come close to running a game with the same visual standards.


----------



## Ramodkk

Yeah, you're right. 2GB of RAM and a 8800GT/9800GT should do


----------



## tlarkin

gamerman4 said:


> I think both are to blame here but Sony really isn't making it easy for programmers. Microsoft gave 10MB of super-fast RAM to the GPU, with 512MB of normal ram to be shared between everything. This makes for better use of RAM. The PS3 has a forced divider between the two so if the developers don't use all 256MB of RAM in the GPU or system, then it is wasted and unable to be used by the other component. Also, Sony over-complicated everything by putting the cell cpu in the PS3, not only did it make it more difficult to code for, it costs a lot more money than the Xenon in the 360, without much to show for it since the 360 has been shown to be roughly equal graphics-wise. Now this could be because the Xenon is easier to code for and thus developers are able to more utilize its "potential" then it is Sony's fault or it could be that the Xbox 360 is just as good at processing information as the PS3 . The PS3 has a lot of limitations for programmers that are actually the fault of the Cell architecture.



I totally agree with you.  Cell processors are used in blade servers, why in the hell would you want it in your gaming console?  Plus they lack all the multi-media extensions that the consumer processors have built into them.  Those processors are made for serious business not for fun and games.

However, I do feel that the developers are partly to blame.  I read the development blog of MGS4 and was totally unimpressed.  They used almost the whole capacity of the BluRady disc with little or nothing to show for it.  They didn't compress anything.  I mean for god's sake, if you have a 7 core processor that is built like a Mac Truck on crack with NOS going down hill with 500 MPH wind at it's back, why not use compression technology?  My quad core processor encrypts and compresses files that are multiple gigabytes in size in a matter of seconds.  I can compress a DVD image and decompress it in under a minute, that is 4.7 Gigs of data.  I mean why in the hell are they not utilizing compression technology?  It is because BluRay allows the developers to be lazy.

Compression technology is getting better and better every year and it is keeping up with everything else.

Also, the SDK, just like Microsoft, Sony gave it out to developers about 2 years or so before the PS3 launch (just like MS with Vista) and the developers had plenty of time to utilize this new technology, yet they don't.

I think overall the PS3 is a FAIL, because of it's cost versus it's benefits and we all know that future-proof is a made up word. As soon as the next xbox comes out Sony will release the PS4 to compete and then everyone who bought a PS3 will be pissed off because it was suppose to be future-proof.

I will buy a PS3 when they are cheap, I do want to play MGS4, but until then I can wait, or if they finally start getting games that I really really want to play.


----------



## bm23

ducis said:


> I think thats a little generous the comp in you sig can run crysis, I ps3 would never come close to running a game with the same visual standards.



i think we would have to wait for a few games coming out this year to really judge the ps3 performance. namely (I THINK), GT5 and FF13. and beside, the ps3 has 7 cores as oppose to 2 in the 8400


----------



## m0nk3ys1ms

ramodkk said:


> I would compare the PS3 to a comp with:
> 
> E8400
> 4GB PC2-6400
> 9800GTX+



That's way to generous. PS3 graphics would be shit compared to what that rig could produce.


----------



## Aastii

PS3 and a PC cannot be compared because they use totally different types of components, it isn't the same 240 pin or even laptop RAM, it isn't close to the same as a PC, processors are different, GPU, "motherboard", they are nothing like a computer's. Xbox have a similar set up to a computer but still vastly different in certain respects, but hey, xbox are microsoft, stick to what you know.


----------



## XanderCage

Aastii said:


> PS3 and a PC cannot be compared because they use totally different types of components, it isn't the same 240 pin or even laptop RAM, it isn't close to the same as a PC, processors are different, GPU, "motherboard", they are nothing like a computer's. Xbox have a similar set up to a computer but still vastly different in certain respects, but hey, xbox are microsoft, stick to what you know.



Well; you are partly correct. However, all the chips in the PS3 XBOX360 are based, if not the exact same on computer counterparts. The PS3'S RSX chip is based on the 7800GTX chip, or g71 i believe. It has similar architecture, and performance.


----------

