PS3 trouncing $3,500 PC's?

[cliffbo]

I dont know where these guys come up with some of this. Making statements such as this is just going to get ridiculed all over the place. I would honestly like to know what these $3500 PCs consist of as I would be more than happy to take them off their hands.


It would also sound better coming from someone other than the Untold Legends developers.

if the article were reversed and said it was not as powerful would you have dismissed it so flippantly or would you have discussed it? answer very carefully wounded an agenda is showing.

[woundingchaney]

So if this is true, would it be right to assume a PC of such power has a theoretical performace of 2Tera FLOPS just like the PS3? Surely not.

It would be right to assume that for 3,500 dollars their pcs should be extremely powerful, although I have no idea what there workstations/office computers consist of. The worst part of the statement is that its coming from the creators of that meh-tacular title Untold Legends.


For 3,500 dollars I could build a pc that not only plays games, surfs the net, but pleases my old lady (seeing as Sony dropped rumble she isnt looking forward to the PS3 anymore LOL).

[woundingchaney]

if the article were reversed and said it was not as powerful would you have dismissed it so flippantly or would you have discussed it? answer very carefully wounded an agenda is showing.

Yes it would have been dismissed right away Cliff, without much of a comment.

And pray tell just what is my agenda Cliff.

[Smokey]

Yes it would have been dismissed right away Cliff, without much of a comment.

And pray tell just what is my agenda Cliff.

i dont think wounding has a agenda but we all have some type of agenda i think you were a bit harsh there

[sif]

Why is it impossible to believe that code optimised for a brand new console will run better on the console than any PC? Optimisation goes a long way, try running an unoptimised PC game with God of War's visuals on a PC with 32MB of RAM and 4MB VRAM. You would struggle with anything less than a 128MB gfx card, and that has 32x the framebuffer of the GS in PS2. So why is this 'news' difficult to believe?

[Angeljuice]

The worst part of the statement is that its coming from the creators of that meh-tacular title Untold Legends.

I have to agree on that, it's by far the least impressive game I've seen in production for PS3, both graphically and in terms of apparent gameplay.

[cliffbo]

this thread is a perfect example of whats happening at the moment. bad for Sony (discuss to death) good for Sony (dismissed as nonsense) not bad for a Sony forum

[Angeljuice]

So if this is true, would it be right to assume a PC of such power has a theoretical performace of 2Tera FLOPS just like the PS3? Surely not.

I'm just repeating what's being said by the PC heads over at Tom's Hardware (they seemed to get a little pissed when Phill Harrison said "we don't need a PC").
In fairness, they did say that that on paper, the PS3 would still have the edge, but in real-world performance, they would be close enough.

Anyway, the point of my last post is that although it may be technically possible to match a PS3 performance wise fairly soon with a PC, it's gonna cost over 6x the price, and you still won't get nearly as rounded a gaming experience.

So why bother?

[Domination]

To be picky, the guy did actually say 'the ps3 is actually trouncing our 3,500 dollar PC's in our offices.. '. He did not say that it is trouncing the workstations in their offices. What is the source of the quote? I'm surprised none of you have asked.

Why do some of you seem so surprised that the PS3 is troucing $3500 PC's. What $3500 PC has 8 processors on a single die each at 3.2GHz coupled with a specialised graphics processor with 35GB/s bandwidth, and 256MB of XDR RAM? Neither Intel P4 or even Xeon processors can really match the power of the Cell at the moment. As for the RSX and current graphics cards, nobody seems to know at the moment. I'll agree that in the future PC's will surpass the PS3, but not just yet, not even $3500 ones. If you bought the top end Dell XPS or Alienware, I think the PS3 would equal and in some areas exceed in terms of performance.

What I have said above may be controversial and some of you may well disagree, but the true power of the PS3 will always lie in the fact that it is a console. As you all know consoles do not change constantly like PC's (well having said that Sony have mentioned the PS3 being like a computer in terms of custom builds, but the core specs should stay the same) and as a result developers can, over time, utilise their full potential and make ever increasingly amazing games.

It's from a video. I believe you can find it at Gametrailers.com under Untold Legends. If not there, then definitely IGN. I saw it long before a topic was made on it in a number of places.

[Infernal]

So does anyone actually doubt that the PS3 can pull off more than a 3500$ PC? I mean no PC when the PS2 came out, even ones that cost 10,000$ could pull off anything close to GT4, God of War, or FFXII graphics. I mean my decently new PC (2 years old) barely makes better graphics than those games.

[Z]

this thread is a perfect example of whats happening at the moment. bad for Sony (discuss to death) good for Sony (dismissed as nonsense) not bad for a Sony forum

this isn't actually a 'Sony' forum. it is a gamers forum that are interested in Sony's offerings in the gaming sector.

as for Wounding, he is as harmless as a soccer mom. er, I hope he doesn't take that the wrong way. soccer moms can get very scary sometimes. O_o

allow me to rephrase that: Wounding is a great member.

The worst part of the statement is that its coming from the creators of that meh-tacular title Untold Legends.

I think we should give the a little brake since the latest footage of UL looks good. it is certainly leaps and bounds from their initial 'shocker'.

as for my opinion, I don't see why people keep comparing consoles to PC. even with technical specs getting close, they are built for very different purposes. they day I come back from work and start my console to prepare next morning's job demands is the day I 'may' concider what I am using as a PC variant. this is like comparing PSP to PDAs, the two couldn't be more different- despite the technical features.

even if I could, I don't see why I should be using Word and priniting forms from my PS3 when my PC is perfectly set and organized to do all my 'work'. I'll leave my PS3 for game and frendly activities (that may involve typing and what not. but of a different manner.)

[woundingchaney]

this thread is a perfect example of whats happening at the moment. bad for Sony (discuss to death) good for Sony (dismissed as nonsense) not bad for a Sony forum

Actually it seems the other way around.:splitspin

But anyways there was no vulgarity to the initial statement Cliff.

[liver_kick]

I think people are taking this largely out of context. Its not really about PS3 vs. PC. I think what he's basically saying is between whatever base code they have running on PC and the process of optimizing for PS3, they've finally reached the point of it running faster on the target platform. Which should come as no surprise, games that are optimized for a specific architecture are naturally going to run faster than even a high end PC. Let alone working with something as divergent as Cell, or having the fortune of a high end Nvidia GPU with an all access API and a closed environment.

Here's another comment from someone working on a PS3 game and comparing the current PC code.

We’re running on PC and PS3 at the moment, and the PS3 version is faster! Go cell

Thats from a Mercenaries 2 developer. http://www.gaffer.org/archives/mercs...-live#comments

[Z]

yes, I would presume than PS3 games would be running better on its target hardware (PS3) than PC. and yes, they are specifically talking about that.

[rpgamer_2k5]

As long as we see tremendous overhauls to titles like Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo, Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, God of War, Atelier Iris Mana (yes, with 2D visuals , etc; the PS3 will definitely better the $3,500 PC available now and in the near-future.

[Viper]

This is currently to be expected. What would be interesting is to test it up against the currently in production chips by major PC component makers.

Also, the N64 was billed as rendering polygons faster than the $250,000 SGI Onyx that many studios developed with, including Squaresoft, and had the fastest CPU on the planet (93.75 mhz) at the time of launch. My point is be careful of these hyping lines as they don't always amount to much.

[makeitlookreal]

Are you for real that the N64 had the fastest CPU on the planet? That is an amazing fact if it is true. I don't doubt you are being honest, but that seems pretty amazing to me.

[Viper]

MILR, after some more research, I've come to believe that the statement was a bad translation from Japanese as it appears Intel already had released a 100 mhz processor sometime before the Japanese N64 launch so either it was initially supposed to be the highest at the time of the article, pre-launch, or they were referring to its 64 bit processor.

[Olz]

Thank you Domination and Angeljuice for replying to my posts. It was unexpected.

The worst part of the statement is that its coming from the creators of that meh-tacular title Untold Legends.

LOL.

Are you for real that the N64 had the fastest CPU on the planet? That is an amazing fact if it is true. I don't doubt you are being honest, but that seems pretty amazing to me.

Maybe MILR you would care to re-read Vipers original post:

Also, the N64 was billed as rendering polygons faster than the $250,000 SGI Onyx that many studios developed with, including Squaresoft, and had the fastest CPU on the planet (93.75 mhz) at the time of launch. My point is be careful of these hyping lines as they don't always amount to much.

Where in that text did Viper specifically say that the N64 had the most powerful processor at the time in it...? The N64 was capable at rendering polygons faster than the Onyx, but Viper's point (or at least I think) was that performance is not directly related to pure processing power (MHz) and as a result cost. The N64 did not have a 93.75Mhz processor in it, but it could still nevertheless render polygons quicker than the Onyx.

this thread is a perfect example of whats happening at the moment. bad for Sony (discuss to death) good for Sony (dismissed as nonsense) not bad for a Sony forum

What is your point? If people enjoy discussing bad things, then leave them be. This is after all a forum, so we can talk about what we want (within limits). By discussing the bad things and understanding the consequences of them, at least if something new is revealed it can be almost certainly taken as a good thing. The main reason people are talking down good news (in my opinion) is becuase of a lack of true facts at the moment. Sony is letting us soak up E3 and prepare ourselves for some real information (TGS?). Sorry for being biased towards you Cliff (nothing personal). Don't take it the wrong way.

[Viper]

Almost, Olz.

I did state the N64 had been listed before as having the fastest CPU on the planet but after researching I find that point may have just been bad translation however the CPU was most definetly 93.75 mhz.

What my point really was about is that sometimes these incredible claims don't amount to much. The N64 was capable of rendering polygons faster than the $250,000 Onyx but what in the long run did that truly do for the system given that shortly after the N64 launch the polygon rendering was quickly stomped on by Voodoo cards and the Onyx went obsolete?

One must be careful and not put too much stock in such claims. Great for bragging rights, true but consoles have always topped PC's around new launch periods.