or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › No BS - PS3 or PC gaming Rig
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No BS - PS3 or PC gaming Rig - Page 2

post #31 of 76
I dunno Tinker, out of love and respect I fired up COD4 on my PC...1080p, 4xaa and full graphics options on. And played a few levels.

To me the high-rez graphics look "faker" on the PC side of things..the trees all have that unnaturally high-rez look to them, lots of pixel shimmer and stuff...everythign is almost too sharp.....the seperation of textures is so cut and dry on the PC side of things..its liek "yes, its sharper..but thats not an improvement in my book".

Dunno..I think I'm an army of one on this one
post #32 of 76
Isn't tunnel vision worse on large screens than comp monitors? When you watch someone else play and notice they miss seeing targets because tunnel vision seems like it could only get worse with every increase in screen size. Smaller higher res screen seems ideal.
post #33 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

I dunno Tinker, out of love and respect I fired up COD4 on my PC...1080p, 4xaa and full graphics options on. And played a few levels.

To me the high-rez graphics look "faker" on the PC side of things..the trees all have that unnaturally high-rez look to them, lots of pixel shimmer and stuff...everythign is almost too sharp.....the seperation of textures is so cut and dry on the PC side of things..its liek "yes, its sharper..but thats not an improvement in my book".

Dunno..I think I'm an army of one on this one

Hey that "maybe" true on TV but not on my setup. BTW:...but I am a pro camper, the sharper edge graphics mean I can get headshots much easier....
post #34 of 76
Hey to each his own...but in the end, higher rez != better graphics to my eyes..at least not anymore....
post #35 of 76
Hey to each their own indeed, cutting edge 2006 graphics that will get marginally better over time due to a fixed hardware spec are just fine for many people! Hell, a 1988 Cadillac Deville is STILL a Cadillac 20 years later and you can STILL drink a 40 in it! p'shaw, oh ye new fangled techs!

-Trouble
post #36 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post


Hardly worth arguing.


Ignore the fact that the dude had to take a physical snapshot of his PS3 screen on this one..the differences are almost not even worth talking about.

OMG man, the pics you chose do NOT support your arguement at all. The PC version is insanely better than the PS3 version in your example.
post #37 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by like.no.other. View Post

I have a high-end PC that can run Crysis at max resolution with decent fps. But
the price-to-power ratio is incomparable. PlayStation 3 wins. But you also have
to consider the games. PlayStation 3 gets more games than PC. The only good
thing about PC is higher graphical level than consoles. Also with high-end PC,
not also you have to pay for ridiculous horsepower, you also need to fuel that
horsepower by buying a lot of wattage which will run your electric bill. PlayStation 3
outweighs everything the PC has.

Are you joking? The PS3 uses basically the same wattage as the PC.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm
post #38 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle View Post

Are you joking? The PS3 uses basically the same wattage as the PC.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-356-2.htm

LOL...PREY isnt exactly a great reference in terms of total system wattage use on a PC...theres a reason we buy 1200 watt PSU's for PC's with 2 or 3 graphics cards
post #39 of 76
If Sony sold the PS3 hardware with the intent of making money on each sale as PC manufacturers do for video cards, we wouldn't be talking about video cards costing the same as the entire console.

HeadRusch, I think you're going solo here

Reasons the PS3 can even remotely compete with PCs in the graphics department has a lot to do with optimization of capabilities..
post #40 of 76
Yeah, can you run 3Dmark06 on PS3?
post #41 of 76
I think the deal is alot of people see a miniscule change in the image quality and immediately begin jumping up and down, like a little bit is a huge deal to them.

I been gaming since..well..since there were videogames, basically.....so I think where we are today, compared to what I was playing when I was a kid...makes these little incremental steps in graphical power almost meaningless to me.

"You damn kids, you try playing two square blocks shooting smaller blocks at each other for every single game you buy....THEN come back and tell me your Xbox 360 graphics Suck!"
post #42 of 76
Personally I prefer PC gaming these days compared to PS3 and 360. The Wii is still plenty fun though

I'm a pretty big gamer, and I've played them all... Up until I built my HTPC that is. Unfortunately I never got around to adding the Neo Geo, CD-i, and LaserActive to my collection, so I can't speak for those...

Now, the classic gen systems are out, and emulation is in.



These days, the PC always comes out on top for me.
post #43 of 76
Yeah, I prefer the ease of the PS3 just because I don't have to keep building on it to keep up, but I do admit the PC is more fun when you do have an up to date system.

Besides, there are pretty much no RPGs released for the PS3 in the US.
post #44 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle View Post

OMG man, the pics you chose do NOT support your arguement at all. The PC version is insanely better than the PS3 version in your example.

I want what your smoking
post #45 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by temeone View Post


Reasons the PS3 can even remotely compete with PCs in the graphics department has a lot to do with optimization of capabilities..

Doesn't matter what the reason is, the point is that it can compare in graphics.
post #46 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle
OMG man, the pics you chose do NOT support your arguement at all. The PC version is insanely better than the PS3 version in your example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBS G35 View Post

I want what your smoking



Quote:
Originally Posted by BBS G35 View Post

Doesn't matter what the reason is, the point is that it can compare in graphics.

Boy you got to be joking if you can not see the diff between the PS3 and PC pics of CoD4 and can claim that the PS3 is better or comparable. All the shadowing is lost with the PS3 and all you you get is super hi contrast lighting effects. Just take a look at the street light on the right. With the PC version even tho its prob at lo rez you do not see as much ringing around the lite source as you do with the PS3 version. You prob would not even see any at higher rez that the PC can do then what is shown in the pic. Every thing else might be diff due to not being exact caps of each. If you have played thru the console (for me the 360) vers and the PC version you would really notice many diff's esp with how the smoke is done with the systems. dont mistaken hi contrast as being more detail. It actually lessen the other detail or is really just covering up the lack of the ability to create good shadow effects (the hard shadows of the PS3 vs the soft shadows of the PC, eg: the shadow on road on the left front side of pic). Thats just going from the caps shown. This could also be how the caps were done. The PS3 totally wiped out any fine details with an over bleach look . Just look at the road...all the detail are gone...washed out. I norm dont call pple out but in this case I think you are way off...sorry. Hey as Head said each to his own.
post #47 of 76
Tinker is right, but he's also giving an example of what I consider to be "not a big deal" graphical improvements.

I mean obviously the screencaps suck cuz they were taken with a camera, but they give you an idea of what you trade OFF on a console version of a game. The fence and the detail on the guardrail for example, the textures on the ground.

But to me, both of those pics look so similar "on the whole" that I'd be happy playing either one, and wouldn't be disappointed if I saw those pics and still "only" had the PS3 version.

Note: those ARE crappy screencaps, first i could find online...the PS3 version does look better and, of course, in Motion..actually playing the game...I doubt anyone would complain.
post #48 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinker View Post

Boy you got to be joking if you can not see the diff between the PS3 and PC pics of CoD4 and can claim that the PS3 is better. All the shadowing is lost with the PS3 and all you you get is super hi contrast lighting effects. Just take a look at the street light on the right. With the PC version even tho its prob at lo rez you do not see as much ringing around the lite source as you do with the PS3 version. You prob would not even see any at higher rez that the PC can do then what is shown in the pic. Every thing else might be diff due to not being exact caps of each. If you have played thru the console (for me the 360) vers and the PC version you would really notice many diff's esp with how the smoke is done with the systems. dont mistaken hi contrast as being more detail. It actually lessen the other detail or is really just covering up the lack of the ability to create good shadow effects (the hard shadows of the PS3 vs the soft shadows of the PC, eg: the shadow on road on the left front side of pic). Thats just going from the caps shown. This could also be how the caps were done. The PS3 totally wiped out any fine details with an over bleach look . Just look at the road...all the detail are gone...washed out. I norm dont call pple out but in this case I think you are way off...sorry. Hey as Head said each to his own.

Point is the difference is not Night and Day like you make it out to me, it's barely noticeable and it's obviously comparable since you're trying soo hard to point out the differences.
post #49 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBS G35 View Post

Point is the difference is not Night and Day like you make it out to me, it's barely noticeable and it's obviously comparable since you're trying soo hard to point out the differences.

But the diff's are there...but with even higher rez's and the enhanced effects with the PC the diff would prob be a lot more pronounce. Most reviewers even prefered the 360 ver over the PS3 for exactly one of the reasons I pt'd out (shadows). But again it comes down to what is acceptable to you that is important, but don't try to convince anybody that the PS3 or 360 are the same as the current mid end PC when it comes to graphics and not even in the same ball part when compared to hi end PC's at hi rez's. Sure if you want to compared them all at 720 or even 1080, the details may be sim, but certain graphic enhancements wil be missing from the consoles versions of the game. Yes a econ car will get you from pt A to pt B as well a Porsche but what about the trip, yes you pay for it but its all about the ride. But again it comes down to what is acceptable to you .

BTW: I wasnt even trying hard to pt out the diff's...it so glaring to me they didnt take any effort to see. I guess it all depends on what you are use to. The little diff's and effects are what you are paying for and expect with a good PC game over the console version.
post #50 of 76
It will get intresting soon...there are talks (rumours) that Crysis may be coming to the PS3...luv to see what can be done.
post #51 of 76
It'll look like FarCry I'm guessing..considering most folks who play crysis now probably do so at medium or medium/high levels and that makes the game look basically like a beefier version of Far Cry.
post #52 of 76
PC will always have better graphics than consoles, because they can be upgraded. The video cards in consoles are outdated by PC gaming standards. They were modeled around the Nvidia GeForce 7800 GTX (at least the PS3 was). All the console games I have played have horrible AA, but if your not picky I guess it won't mind you much. I'm mainly a PC gamer and I can set my AA high enough to get rid of all the jaggy lines. I guess PC gamers are spoiled. I loved playing MGS 4, but I don't understand why people are saying it looks amazing. It's got horrible jaggy lines and square pixel shadows. Oh the horror.

A PC gaming rig is gonna cost like $1500 for a good one, that will last you at least 2 years without an upgrade to maintain peak performance in all the lastest games. Top of the line video cards cost as much as a PS3 ($500+). You don't need top of the line to max out all the current games, but if you want to max out games like Crysis and Far Cry 2 you will. Mostly all $200-300 range video cards will easily max out current games excluding Crysis and Far Cry 2.

Here is a list of games coming out this year. I say just make up a list of games that you want to play that haven't been released yet. Don't forget the games coming out in 2009 too. I didn't put them in that list. Then tally up which has the most: console or PC. Also remember PC games are $10 cheaper than console games.

For those who say its not noticable in the graphics difference. Your probably not a gamer who plays mainly on a PC, because I can spot things like that in console games every second. I have a 360, PS3, Wii and PC. I can tell the difference between PC vs console. Not so much console vs console, since my brother borrowed the 360 and I only have the PS3 here.

Why not get a 360? There is a link on my site to a $190 Xbox 360 Premium Reertified. Way cheaper than a PS3 or PC and even a Wii.
post #53 of 76
Nonsense. It doesn't cost you $1500 for a good PC gaming rig. You can get a decent one for well under $1000 these days, much closer to the $600+ range if you go no frills. Plus you can always upgrade as you go along, which is impossible to do with the consoles (other than controllers).
post #54 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunbunnysoulja View Post

Personally I prefer PC gaming these days compared to PS3 and 360. The Wii is still plenty fun though

I'm a pretty big gamer, and I've played them all... Up until I built my HTPC that is. Unfortunately I never got around to adding the Neo Geo, CD-i, and LaserActive to my collection, so I can't speak for those...

Now, the classic gen systems are out, and emulation is in.



These days, the PC always comes out on top for me.

No Coleco?
post #55 of 76
Hahaha. I had a ColecoVision. Played that Donkey Kong until my eyes bled.

I had an Atari Lynx too. Another system that was well before its time.
post #56 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle View Post

No Coleco?

Colecovision box is at the top left.......but where's the Vectrex Box!??!?
post #57 of 76
Your not going to max out games at 1920x1200 resolution for under $1000 PC, which is the resolution he plans on using. Unless your playing minesweeper. You may get a decent one for around $800 at the least, but that PC won't have as long of a life span.
post #58 of 76
Agreed....I've got an 8800GTX which I overclock...I'm gaming on a 1920x1080 37" display with a Core2Duo chip overclocked. I dont have enough horsepower to run games "maxed" out even with that card overclocked.

And I paid like $500 for that card when I got it......part of the reason I'm a little down on PC games....the hardware investment just doesn't justify the gaming experince I am getting anymore.

If I am lucky and the game isn't TOO much of a performance hog, I can get away with turning on some AA while maintaining a respectable framerate. COD4 I can turn on 2xaa...but at 4xaa I notice too much studdering and framerate fluctuations to make it playable. Assasins Creed was like forget it...maybe 2xaa but even then it was not running well. For the record I sold off my copies (well ok I still have COD4 on the hard drive, SHHHH!) for the PC
and bought the 360 versions of both games and am enjoying both of them much more on that platform than I did on the PC.
post #59 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Colecovision box is at the top left.......but where's the Vectrex Box!??!?


Vectrex? If one wants to impress me to high-hell, show me the Fairchild video system, itcame out right before the 2600. I never knew a soul that had it.
post #60 of 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by krazyxazn View Post

Your not going to max out games at 1920x1200 resolution for under $1000 PC, which is the resolution he plans on using. Unless your playing minesweeper. You may get a decent one for around $800 at the least, but that PC won't have as long of a life span.

A 6850 DC and 8800GT is what you can get for a total $700 system that is talking everything, even o/s. Now if you already have a box, your HD, DVD, O/s and Case which most do, you can get an even better video card/proc if you like, or a second 8800GT which is pretty beastly. And you can play a lot of games at 1920 on a 6850/8800GT system, perhaps not something like Crysis Ultra-High, but then again that is one piss ass game and one graphic setting option.

IMO a 6850dc/8800GT is still a very strong gaming unit, much more capable then minesweeper and I can play Crysis at 1650 on high well over console level performance which is now happy yo see 30 fps in many a game.

And funny Head's system which is probably a bit stronger then 2 of mine, he has performance issues, but then again 2 of the 3 displays I have I was smart enough to get a 1650 monitor and not a 1920. Since 1650 looks great esp with 4xAA, blows consoles fully out of the water I found 1920 not to be worth it, not the pc and it's parts. IMO you're over-sweating the pc because of the monitors requirements.

Also a PC max'd out a 1920 vs a console max'd out at 720 is apple vs oranges, huge difference in pixel manipulation and graphical features. Try 1650 still more then double the console, you can have 4xaa ta boot, higher textures etc and it can still outpreform a console FPS wise.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › No BS - PS3 or PC gaming Rig