Ok. im debating whether i want to hold off on ps3.start up pc gaming, or just get a wii PS3 is totally awesome you all know from previous posts that im totaly supportive of it. But we all know first wave consoles are buggy and so on..so im thinking maybe i should wait until ffx13 comes out to invest in a ps3..by then patches will be out for almost every problem, online will be up to par with microsoft.and the console will be more popular...And its almost impossible to get one So im thinking until then...buy a 1000dollar PC (my mom gets discount from ibm and dell) make sure it has dual-core then buy like an average 200$ graphics card..Last year i use to play ffxi and guild wars I LOVED IT..but with dial-up it was hell to keep up with updates and fight lag..(im getting broadband for christmas) I know for sure these and maybe an addition of a 1st person shooter i can wait for ff13. But..ff13 isnt the only game i want ..a lot of great games are coming out before that one.. soo im not sure exactly what i should do.I mean i like pc for mmorpgs and stuff like that...but the experience of motorstorm is not possible on pc Thanks for listening!!
depends if you want to go to college then just invest alot of money or a little bit to get yourself a nice shuttle or a tower pc with a nice monitor and i bet i can find you some good ones online or some people can find you online for around 1200 or so all you would need is a good card if you are into extensive gaming but if you want a notebook then around 1400 or 1300 you can get a nice and smooth notebook for cheap price though for ps3 just wait till next summer or june if you want cuz i whad this same problem and i am just going to wait till summer to get a ps3 cuz then they will be no glitches or anything else and new games and intensive software will be out for ps3 then so if you want a computer badly then just buy a desktop or laptop your choice and just wait till ps3 comes out in june not like you can just get it forthis christmas anyways that is what i amdoing Zain
average 200$ GFX card(7900GT, x1800XT, x1900) is more powerfull than the graphics core used in the PS3... and the PS3 isn't that powerful given it's time, it's using a lot of parts which are downgraded versions of stuff released a year and a half ago (in this case the RSX core which is based off of the GeForce 7800 GO) On the other hand, the Xbox 360 has a moderately more powerful GPU, but a moderately less powerful CPU. At this point though, the games on the consoles are more GPU limited than CPU limited though, so in terms of real world performance despite the PS3 looking better on paper, it really isn't. That might change in 1-2 years, but as i see it, the xenos GPU is utilized less efficiently than the RSX GPU utilising it much more room to grow, and it already looks like it has better graphics. Xenos is about 1 year newer in design and is a radical departure, RSX is just a cheeper version of a 1.5 year old design made for wide scale mass prodution(and this design is ultimately an update of a 3 year old desing) I'll say that the Cell processor in the PS3 is a great design in theory, I was impressed by it's specs on paper when i first heard about it. Since then it's been determined that it has much lower real world performance for the average user especially given that they could nto get it to run at as high of a frequency as originally predicted and with fewer useabel SPUs. Give the Cell architecture a year, for now I don't trust the PS3, the PS3 being IBM and Sony's lab rat for what could very be the future of CPU design... or a lost cause. and nVidia, has officially stopped mainstream development of the G7x architecture used in the RSX core and is focusing on their G80 architecture, which in some cases is up to 10 times as powerful(though in some rare exceptions its only about twice as powerful) remember, consoles can't be up to date because they need to start production and development well before the system is released and then they need to use parts which are simple enough to be mass produced cheaply. ================================================== on the matter of the PC, I'd personally buy from IBM over Dell, my step father purchased a Dell XPS against my recomendation, thus far he's returned two units both within 30 days of purchase due to harddrive failures, and the OS on them is horribly bloated with addon crap. GFX card, see what you can get a good deal on. my recommendations are the following ATI radeon x1900 AIW(can be OCed like mad) ATI radeon x1900GT ATI radeon x1800XT nVidia GeForce 7900GT nVidia GeForce 7950GT CPU- dual core is the way to go if you're into multitasking, or jsut want a smooth overall experience. I certainely notice the diference, though it is no where near a doubling of performance. It is more to the effect of a 5-10% gain in performance, but it's a performance gain when you most need it - when you're doing something heavy duty. Just doing light stuff you won't notice a performance diference. Ranked in order Core 2 Duo - great processor, lowest mdoel has about 50% mroe real world performance than the Cell CPU used in the PS3, highest has probably double. The 2.13Ghz model is overall a little faster than a 4.0GHz Pentium D. Athlon x2- pretty good CPU, OK alternative to a c2d on the midend. It is about 20% less power ful per GHz as compared to a core 2 duo, but it's cheaper so you can get a higher model somewhat negating the clock difference. Overall it's probably slightly slower for the money than a c2d in gaming, but it feels a fair amount quicker for general use, though it installs programs somewhat slower. The 2.2 GHz model is comparable to a 3.8Ghz pentium D in terms of realworld performance. Pentium D- The crap bin of dual core. There is a reason why intel stopped develping these. They run hot so you need a more powerfull(and louder) fan to cool these, and they'll still run hotter than the athlons and the core 2s. Ohh, they also have the lowest performance of any mainstreme dual core processor and bad performance/$ ratios on all but the cheapest models. Core 2 duo is almost twice as powerful at a given clock speed and the athlon x2s are around 70% more pwoerful per Hz.
I would go for the Nintendo Wii when it comes out. It looks pure class and I am sure will be a very promising console. For the price to, you can really not go wrong. The PS3 has had a lot of bugs lately and compared to the price of a PS3 to a Wii the Wii is definately better. Paying $1000 for a computer just for gaming is a lot of money and there is always the problems of virus etc on computers. I would just wait for the Wii and if you want a PS3 get that when it becomes a lot cheaper in a few years time. The PS2 is fine for use until then. For computer games if you want to play something like Guild Wars then just use your normal computer. The choice is yours! Good luck in choosing!
Ok Thanks everyone for the tips,advice,options and opinions...I will definately put them into consideration. Thanks, Dharmesha13,
Wow god. I remember asking myself the question if you were --- pc or just anti-playstation. Now I know Ps2 was a great console having only 300Mhz CPU and a Toshiba GPU. Contrary to what you seem to believe, people do actually know that consoles are less powerfull then high end computers but do actually have both a pc and a console. Keep in mind that you can't actually compare parts from consoles with pc parts that you buy in the store. A 2Ghz chip for all purposes would perform the same task equally good as a 200Mhz chip optimized for only that task. However, I do think you should wait with buying a Ps3. You can always use a better pc. Over here in Europa we have to wait till next year anyway. Just get a gaming pc, and wait with us :lol:
the difference though is that cell wasn't necessarily optimized for running AI and physics calculations. Remember it's primary use for quite a while will be medical research... also, Mhz doesn't have anything to do with anything. one could design a processor which runs at 500mhz, but is 20 issues wide, has 1000 highly specialized cores, has 99.9% perfect branch prediction, has 1000 pipeline stages in half the cores, and 2 in the other 500, etc. and it would rape anything we have today. also, you neglect the reverse aspect, a chip can be optimized for high performance in a given task, but that only will matter if the task is optimized for high performance on a chip. You could have the best CPu in existence and it won't matter worth a damn if you're running a poorly coded program. and yes, i realize that the PS3 can have a lot of code optimizations, but as i see it, nvidia allready has a lot of code optimizations going on for their PC games so not much will be gained. Xenos on the other hand has A LOT more room for code optimization. and again, the PS3'd high definition games are at something like 1280*1024, big f'ing WOW...
Good point..i think ur basicaly saying ps3 is capable of more than resistance and the other ports like madden.But no games are out and wont be until like 3 years. then games will be able to fully use the ps3's power
well my stance is that the xbox 360 currently has mroe games out and they look better. Also, the way games are programmed for it, they're taking a 20%(give or take) performance hit because Xenos has a unified shader architecture. I see Xenos scalign much better with code optimizations, as I said the new GOW for it is ahving issues as they're attempting to code for it to take advantage of it's US architecture but it's hard. essentially what I'm saying is, I see more potential in the 360 and it costs less at this time with better graphics. that could change though, it's still too early to tell, I just consider the PS3 to be Sony's ultimate F' up, non-delivered promises and too much marketing. again give it a year. on another note, it would be interesting to run linux on the PS3...
haha definately LINUX is not exactly "user friendly" so its already unfamilar to most on computers.. so the ps3 hmmmmn?
The linux os on the Ps3 can not be compared to the pc version. It's just the Ps3 interface like you would expect it, only based on linux.
