oh..... ethan ....dude ever heard about wikipedia ?? o_0..better read there and tell me :
Just one quick question? Do you think I was born yesterday and was yanking this stuff out of my arse? I know what Wikipedia is and guess what the information in there is uploaded by normal people like us and if you're using only that website as your reference then I'd suggest you better start using Google search.
source quoted from wiki :
" Most commercial USB controllers are compatible with the PlayStation 3 as it supports standard USB human interface devices. This includes gamepads, joysticks and steering wheel controllers. A limitation of this is that not all such controllers provide the same range of inputs as a Sixaxis/DualShock 3 controller (fewer buttons or joysticks for example), so may not be practical in all games. When any such controller is used with games which require sixaxis functionality or the use of the analog buttons usability is also limited. A lot PlayStation 2 games which were programmed to use the analog functionality of the PlayStation 2 controllers buttons will not accept non-analog input therefore Sixaxis or DualShock 3 controllers must be used (though this could potentially be solved with future firmware updates)."
Did you even bother reading this bit? It supports USB devices which was done even by a 9 year old PS2. So don't give me that sh*t that this technology is something new to the consoles. In practicality, if you connect a USB mouse and keyboard, then it won't turn into a PC and start playing all that the games. Do you know why? Because it's not designed for a f*ckin' WSAD configuration, that's why.
dude secondly do you even know what is the bandwidth of xdr ram .... probably the normal fastest desktop ddr3 / ddr2 ram you use sucks ass with about less than 8gigabit/ second bandwidth ... xdr ram can go all the way upto 20gigabits /second .and clock speeds of 6ghz .. also its internal bandwidth is about 50gigabits/ second..actually the xdr ram is GDDRx/ ddr8 in theoritical terms (x = more than 5 faster than HD 5990's ram )
All I see is figures which you can keep quoting for ages, what I need is results.
also add the fps delivered by the ps3 is part responsible beacuse of your lcd screen which limits it due to processing power... if you wait for the new generation lcd panels with 1 gigabyte xdr ram processors and intel based mobo ... you see how the ps3 sucks the **** out of any pc .... about ati 4850 and rest cards... the pci x16 lane limits your bandwidth... to the card... howeever since the ps3 is running on a single BUS it has nearly unlimited bandwitdh supply in theory... it is only bottlenecked by its basic hardware and clocks speeds
What the f*ck are you talking about? LCD screen limitation? Do you even know how frame calculation works? The PC cards are can handle true resolution of 2560x1536 and the PS3 is capped at 1080p output. Most of the games keep upscaling their 720p designed frames and it's not an LCD limitation, but a developer choice. Have you seriously given it some thought or your just copy-pasting numbers and mixing random theories off websites?
and also please... for gods sake read somewhere you post about the " CPU powerful my ass it cannot do anything " you know why sony put 2x 6800ge force ultra's ? beacuse more than 70% of processing is done by the cpu core
Do you know what calculation CPU does? and how important a GPU is in tandem to it? Complex graphic calculations at the end of the day is to be rendered by the GPU. Tell me how GTA IV runs on the PS3? Have you even played that game on the PS3? Ask a PS3 user. If the CPU does most of the work, then in that theory, it should run at 60fps easily. That game has so much texture rendering, shadow detailing, independent AI behaviour calculation etc. This could have been easily taken care of with your Cell processor, then what went wrong?
[/COLOR]i am currently running a mid range pc config ... and it compares nothing to the ps3 ...
i am running :
- amd phenom II x4 955 be
- msi 785g e53 mobo
- 4gb ddr3 ram xms 3 1600mhz
- 500gb hdd x 2
- sapphire HD 5770
- corsair vx 550
- cooler master galdiator
I pity you mate, if you feel that way. I have tried both the consoles and trust me, I have been on the PC long enough to pass a judgement on it. You can ask a PS3 user yourself and then get back to me. Don't even think of rambling figures without having a personal experience, it doesn't help justify your post. What resolution do you play at? What settings do you use? Have you played multi-platform titles on the PS3 from up close and notice the aliasing issues? I suggest you buy the console and then let me know.
so i guess you are wrong please use google next time ?? and dude forget the discussion i think i have enough evidence to prove my point about ps3 being better than a pc .... graphically..... not in any other way .... at least for now
The list that you posted, have you even bothered reading up with their true resolution output over the internet? Literally, even games off the box claims to support 1080i/p resolutions and that doesn't mean they
ARE 1080p in real time. I'd suggest you really do more reading up and learn what native 1080p support and upscaling means, this would really help brush up your reading and comprehending skills.
zzz also going over 30fps makes no-sense because the eye cannot see any difference above that .... and moreover the LOD is useless for the pc eye-candy...
Do you know why we need a constant 60fps to balance the gameplay? It's because when there is a graphic intensive scene taking place, the frames tend to take a hit and if it's capped at 30fps, then god help you when it drops. I have witnessed it first hand with console ports on PC. Also don't tell me you can make out when the game is running at 60fps and when it's on 30fps. Try playing Ninja Blade on console which is locked at 30fps and play it on the PC with highest settings and then talk to me. You'll realise the smooth gameplay.
man i am just trying to open his mind ... pc freaks are so narrow minded even i was once in the past LOL..... when i had a new pc.... but i noticed you cant keep up with the pace that technology evolves... so for once you need to accept someone is better than you
Open my mind? If you even bothered reading up my earlier post then I have clearly mentioned that I own a next-generation console and have also used the PS3. So this is not something which is new to me. I have been using consoles since they first started, so I'm not a first timer to gaming world. You know what I hate? I hate it when people actually don't use the console and pass judgement about PC. When I bought my 360, the first thing I tried to analyse was the PC users constant comments of how poorly games are rendered on it and trust me, if you view it from a close distance, then you'll really know how bad they look. PC is and will always be crisp, unless the game itself is poorly coded.
Last but not the least, this is not a competition of being "better than someone", it's about knowing the truth when it's staring right in front of you and accepting it.
also are you trying to add that your pc can run crysis / UT3 @ 1080p all settings full with 30fps + constant ?
I play at 1920x1080 with high settings and I get 38fps. UT3 is locked at 60fps, so that doesn't even count, my 7900GT could trash that game at 39fps back then. This card wouldn't even need to fart at 1920x1080 to get 60fps in UT3.
Also FYI, nothing is constant, frame drops occur in every platform. If you didn't notice it, then you probably haven't benchmarked it.
well consoles cannot run at full settings but you see many things like the textures and shaders some part depend on the display you are using ... for example as i mentioned before... the new HDTV panels will be having 32-bit processing with 1 gbit xdr ram and a new architecture based on the intel p4 series... so the tv's will be able to load bigger and better frames... resulting in more detail
Do you have any source which supports this claim? It's weird how PS3 games are being restricted by the LCD panel strength whereas the PC is blowing it's wind out with those same panels and an "inferior" hardware according to your theory.
well as far as the games are concerned at running at 30fps..... this is because they use motion blur .... motion blur is the same thing as 60fps .... but runnning a game at 60fps would actually require half the amount of processing power than motion blur ... so thank the ps3 game developers for making the graphics real to life .... also about hardware the developer of ps3 said that it is capable of running games at 120fps.... yes 120fps .... ooh..... pc fanboys.... loooks like the heat is on...
Oh WOW! It's been 4 years since it's release and I'm yet to see any game cross 60fps mark or most games crossing 30fps mark. But anyway I'll hold onto that thought till the game actually comes out. 120fps was it again? Wake me up when the time is right. Hope it's not after we get the PS4.
PS: Motion Blur is available on the PC as well and Mass Effect 2 still runs at a 58fps despite me using it. Again this is @1080p with every detail maxed out. Blur is a visual effect and doesn't necessarily translate into graphics being life like. The level of detail to the to surrounding and character does
a la Crysis.
One small advice before you post more figures and specifications of what the PS3 is "capable of" and what not. Get the console, use it and play a multi-platform title on it and PM me the result. If you think there isn't any difference, then I'll certainly have a wall ready to bash my head against it.
.
I've heard the hardware failure of PS3 is none. No RRoD-like errors, eh?
to PC fans
. actually its 7800gtx.
... my brain is filled with very good information... and i'm still using 7800GTX, yea its the most amazing graphics card ever:glass-jumping:...
...
