PS3 vs 8800gt VS 360 benchmark. not so new! for the haters!

its easy, because of the programer optimization. for example oblivion looks pretty good in 7900gt but fallout 3wont look as good in 7900gt. nowa game likeRAGE will look fine in 8800gt and will look fine in ps3, but itwont look that good on a 7900gt. later on games will look worse on 8800gt than in a ps3. sorry im not a native english speaker

S3P4eeever

Will face palms get you moderated on this forum?

Because I think this person just tried to take a 7 series GPU being surpassed by the PS3, 7 series being RSX as we know, then argued the same would happen to the 8 series which is a whole new architecture.

Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? Fixed hardware has utilization advantages over the PC equivalent, but it isn't going to let you surpass future hardware.

Wow, cows are trying to fool people who know nothing about computers now? You think you can trick us by comparing the PS3 to a 4 year old video card? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tell you what, a $150 video card today is 3 times more powerful than the entire PS3.

Hanass

Even the 8800 is more powerfull than the ps3.

8800 = 518 gflops

ps3 (cell + rsx) = xbox aprox 228 gflops

[QUOTE="S3P4eeever"]

[QUOTE="GTR2addict"]bravo, well done PS3, you can beat a single core with 1 gig of ram attached to a stock clocked 320mb 8800GTS! seriously, the ps3 is a weak piece of crap, if you can't deal with that, you're a sony fanboy my 4850 alone wold eat the ps3 as a wholeGTR2addict

lol you are dreaming indeed.

a single core pentium 4 with 8800gts better than a PS3 Pff i wont wast my time no more.

http://www.ps3daily.co.uk/20081120/gran-turismo-5-gt5-in-4-times-the-resolution-of-full-hd/

+ MY FUTURE 5870 WILL EAT YOURCHEAP 4850 FOR BREAKFAST!

who has two thumbs and doesn't care: *points to self* this guy.

ah yes. compare a ps3 designed program running on a gpu to two systems with both a cpu and gpu. makes total sense.

people need to learn how to critically read. im not saying its not possible for these numbers im just saying the data is flawed until proven otherwise with a nonbias comparison.

and this is quite pointless if the ps3 hasnt used this yet.

ah yes. compare a ps3 designed program running on a gpu to two systems with both a cpu and gpu. makes total sense.

people need to learn how to critically read. im not saying its not possible for these numbers im just saying the data is flawed until proven otherwise with a nonbias comparison.

and this is quite pointless if the ps3 hasnt used this yet.

washd123

THe tech was interesting for a bit, it allows for textures to be altered based on shader events.

It was boasted for a while in the PS3 as being "4D" graphics, however it ended up in all practicality, useless.

THe numbers are most likely accurate, this is the exact sort of computation the PS3's cell was made for, but it is mostly useless in gaming.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

ah yes. compare a ps3 designed program running on a gpu to two systems with both a cpu and gpu. makes total sense.

people need to learn how to critically read. im not saying its not possible for these numbers im just saying the data is flawed until proven otherwise with a nonbias comparison.

and this is quite pointless if the ps3 hasnt used this yet.

Irick_cb

THe tech was interesting for a bit, it allows for textures to be altered based on shader events.

It was boasted for a while in the PS3 as being "4D" graphics, however it ended up in all practicality, useless.

THe numbers are most likely accurate, this is the exact sort of computation the PS3's cell was made for, but it is mostly useless in gaming.

i hope they use it eventually.

lol some console fanboys cant accept the truth.. really.. -_-

uhmm i used to have a 8800 gt with a 2.7 dual core and running resident evil 5 on 1440x900 with 8x anti aliasing with ave 61 fps lowest is 42 in intense scenes

while the consoles only manages to have 30fps coded on a 720p resolution and still ps3 has some frame rate drops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nzv31uHLY

im not against the console, but the truth really is, 8800 is a 2 yr old card but its still a top of the line card and it is G92, while ps3's gpu equals to 7800 gtx whatever, while xbox only has x1800 xt.., these gpu's bandwith only manages to have 18 gb/s (wikipedia would help though) while 8800 has a minimum of 57.6 gb/s, THATS A LOT MAN lol, and their processors gives justice but still not enough, the thing is, if u want some pure fun gaming with the latest releases and the best exclusives, go with consoles, but if u want some serious gaming and performance ( intensive games like crysis etc ) then pc would be the choice, as with 8800 gt, u will be a happy camper..

[QUOTE="S3P4eeever"]

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"] Of course they suck they couldnt harness all that ps3 power and make their games at 1080p just like every good lookin ps3 exclusive. Oh wait neither is killzone 2 neither is uncharted and uncharted 2 and neither any other semi decent looking ps3 game at 1080p. So what does that says acoording to you?WilliamRLBaker

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=3605691

list of full hd ps3 games. nothing more to say. tata

GT5 Prologue = 1920×1080 lies

8600 gts is different from 8800 gt, and even a dual core can give justice

check it and comment!

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9414174&postcount=476

S3P4eeever

Hmm, according to my Acer P241w Widescreen Monitor (which my PS3 shares with my PC) GT5P sets it to 1920x1080 - I just fire up the game and start a race, then call up the OSD and get the resolution info. In fact the display says:

1920x1080

H:68KHz V:60Hz

And I make sure neither the PS3 nor the display "blows it up" to completely fill the screen (i.e. Aspect Ratio is maintained).


Anyway another thing that happened was I compared NFS:Shift demos on my PC and my PS3, and this is what happened:

1. The PC version was absolutely sluggish even at the lowest resolution settings (640x480 with all detail settings at minimum, and that's on a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad w/ 2GB DDR2 RAM and a GeForce 8600GTS), and worse, it would exit to Windows spontaneously 5 seconds after a race starts.
2. The PS3 version is fixed at 1280x720 (720p) according to the same monitor's OSD reading, though from what I could observe it runs at 30FPS (without slowdown at least), and with the equivalent of all detail settings at maximum compared to the PC version. Also, I had no problems on the PS3 version (from installation to game launch to finishing a race).

In case I'm getting the full version of NFS:Shift, I'm definitely getting the PS3 version.

Sailor_Enlil

1. it says that because its upscaled the native res in game is 1280x1080

2. thats due to the 8600gts a significantly weak gpu in the scale of things its weaker than the RSX+cell combo

3.no its not maximum settings at 720p. its about mediumhigh. ive seen them both side by side maxed at 720p on a pc and the console version theres a clear difference. not saying the console version looks bad but its not max

10 SEC FOR THE 360, 5 FOR THE 8800GTS AND 1.2 SEC FOR THE PS3 yay!

ps3 foreeeever!!!!

S3P4eeever

If only this meant anything for gaming :D

Also, the 8800GTS is a weakcard. If this benchmark had been done with a 5770/GTX 260 (150$) the PS3 would be like an old granny :D

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"][QUOTE="S3P4eeever"]

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=3605691

list of full hd ps3 games. nothing more to say. tata

S3P4eeever

hey im a pc gamer as well dont try to say to me that your 8800gt is gonna be better tan my ps3. i will still be sucking thejuice out my ps3 while your card will be useless

I love it when hermits get so rattled. Guys the truth is no matter what gpu you have in your pc, it WILL NEVER BE TRULY OPTIMISED FOR what ever game your playing. More than likely and truth be told that 8800 series cards was NEVER maxed out by any dev not even with crysis. Cause the devs didn't program that game or games just for that card.

Yes resolutions may not be as high, but the amount of detail, and effects going on screen for a ps3 game is quite impressive for the tech inside of it. And it all happens cause the game is optimised for the system its on. I would say most pc gamers are needlessly upgrading just because of poor coding cause the devs are coding for every card out there, and not the one they have only. I know yall have seen benchmarks ran on gpu's that actually ran better on older gpu's than newer ones depending on the game. If that newer one was suppose to be the answer all then why did that benchmark reach that conclusion?

I'm a pc gamer aswell, well not nearly asmuchnow since having a ps3, and its because I just don't think games are optimised well or polished like they should be for pc games. I've gotten me a new rig back in Feb. and played Crysis and now Mass Effect and that has been it. Needless to say ME even at high resolutions isn't a stunner by no means, so Resolutions only help so much. So when talking cards keep resolutions to the side, cause if a game isn't flashy its not going to help that game look better just because of higher resolutions.

Wow.... It even amazes me the 8800gt can unpack textures considering its a freakin graphics card..

If the relevant PC specs where posted I would be remotley interested...

this is "really f--king old"

but the CPU doesn't really matter, as the generation is all done on the shader pipeline.

GPGPU stuff.

this was UT3 engine tech.

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

Wow, cows are trying to fool people who know nothing about computers now? You think you can trick us by comparing the PS3 to a 4 year old video card? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tell you what, a $150 video card today is 3 times more powerful than the entire PS3.

Even the 8800 is more powerfull than the ps3.

8800 = 518 gflops

ps3 (cell + rsx) = xbox aprox 228 gflops

[QUOTE="Sailor_Enlil"]

Hmm, according to my Acer P241w Widescreen Monitor (which my PS3 shares with my PC) GT5P sets it to 1920x1080 - I just fire up the game and start a race, then call up the OSD and get the resolution info. In fact the display says:

1920x1080

H:68KHz V:60Hz

And I make sure neither the PS3 nor the display "blows it up" to completely fill the screen (i.e. Aspect Ratio is maintained).


Anyway another thing that happened was I compared NFS:Shift demos on my PC and my PS3, and this is what happened:

1. The PC version was absolutely sluggish even at the lowest resolution settings (640x480 with all detail settings at minimum, and that's on a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad w/ 2GB DDR2 RAM and a GeForce 8600GTS), and worse, it would exit to Windows spontaneously 5 seconds after a race starts.
2. The PS3 version is fixed at 1280x720 (720p) according to the same monitor's OSD reading, though from what I could observe it runs at 30FPS (without slowdown at least), and with the equivalent of all detail settings at maximum compared to the PC version. Also, I had no problems on the PS3 version (from installation to game launch to finishing a race).

In case I'm getting the full version of NFS:Shift, I'm definitely getting the PS3 version.

washd123

1. it says that because its upscaled the native res in game is 1280x1080

2. thats due to the 8600gts a significantly weak gpu in the scale of things its weaker than the RSX+cell combo

3.no its not maximum settings at 720p. its about mediumhigh. ive seen them both side by side maxed at 720p on a pc and the console version theres a clear difference. not saying the console version looks bad but its not max

[QUOTE="washd123"]

[QUOTE="Sailor_Enlil"]

Hmm, according to my Acer P241w Widescreen Monitor (which my PS3 shares with my PC) GT5P sets it to 1920x1080 - I just fire up the game and start a race, then call up the OSD and get the resolution info. In fact the display says:

1920x1080

H:68KHz V:60Hz

And I make sure neither the PS3 nor the display "blows it up" to completely fill the screen (i.e. Aspect Ratio is maintained).


Anyway another thing that happened was I compared NFS:Shift demos on my PC and my PS3, and this is what happened:

1. The PC version was absolutely sluggish even at the lowest resolution settings (640x480 with all detail settings at minimum, and that's on a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad w/ 2GB DDR2 RAM and a GeForce 8600GTS), and worse, it would exit to Windows spontaneously 5 seconds after a race starts.
2. The PS3 version is fixed at 1280x720 (720p) according to the same monitor's OSD reading, though from what I could observe it runs at 30FPS (without slowdown at least), and with the equivalent of all detail settings at maximum compared to the PC version. Also, I had no problems on the PS3 version (from installation to game launch to finishing a race).

In case I'm getting the full version of NFS:Shift, I'm definitely getting the PS3 version.

Sailor_Enlil

1. it says that because its upscaled the native res in game is 1280x1080

2. thats due to the 8600gts a significantly weak gpu in the scale of things its weaker than the RSX+cell combo

3.no its not maximum settings at 720p. its about mediumhigh. ive seen them both side by side maxed at 720p on a pc and the console version theres a clear difference. not saying the console version looks bad but its not max

Thats due to either a shoddy optemize job by the developers, or the fact your computer isn't well maintained..

sSubZerOo

most likely his pc.

the demo runs fine a smooth on my pc. i use a 360 controller for my racers and its pretty responsive

it's an 8800GTS and he doesn't comment on the PC specs.

Espada12

I love it when hermits get so rattled. Guys the truth is no matter what gpu you have in your pc, it WILL NEVER BE TRULY OPTIMISED FOR what ever game your playing. More than likely and truth be told that 8800 series cards was NEVER maxed out by any dev not even with crysis. Cause the devs didn't program that game or games just for that card.

Yes resolutions may not be as high, but the amount of detail, and effects going on screen for a ps3 game is quite impressive for the tech inside of it. And it all happens cause the game is optimised for the system its on. I would say most pc gamers are needlessly upgrading just because of poor coding cause the devs are coding for every card out there, and not the one they have only. I know yall have seen benchmarks ran on gpu's that actually ran better on older gpu's than newer ones depending on the game. If that newer one was suppose to be the answer all then why did that benchmark reach that conclusion?

I'm a pc gamer aswell, well not nearly asmuchnow since having a ps3, and its because I just don't think games are optimised well or polished like they should be for pc games. I've gotten me a new rig back in Feb. and played Crysis and now Mass Effect and that has been it. Needless to say ME even at high resolutions isn't a stunner by no means, so Resolutions only help so much. So when talking cards keep resolutions to the side, cause if a game isn't flashy its not going to help that game look better just because of higher resolutions.

GreyFoXX4

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

it's an 8800GTS and he doesn't comment on the PC specs.

Cait__Sith

we cant assume anything.

[QUOTE="Sailor_Enlil"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

1. it says that because its upscaled the native res in game is 1280x1080

2. thats due to the 8600gts a significantly weak gpu in the scale of things its weaker than the RSX+cell combo

3.no its not maximum settings at 720p. its about mediumhigh. ive seen them both side by side maxed at 720p on a pc and the console version theres a clear difference. not saying the console version looks bad but its not max

sSubZerOo