Why do gaming pc's with better hardware than ps3...

[QUOTE="UNcartMe"]what are your specs? and to me that doesn't look too good. i mean the textures and effects kill ps3, but it seems laggy and has a lot of screen tearing and stuff! ugh i hate the way it looks when moving the camera with a mouse.RyviusARC

You're gaming on a laptop...there's your problem.mitu123

This thread is not worth posting in...

DAMNIT, I just did!!!!

Why do gaming PCs with better hardware than PS3 or 360 have games that run so bad, and look even worse at 720p? I mean UC3 looks so crisp compared to my crysis or gta4 on pc. I mean even with a $1000 pc, games don't look as good as UC3 without a performance hit. Why is that? I'm just wondering....not hating.

UNcartMe

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Then why did you make a thread about gaming PCs not performing very well when your basis is a non-gaming laptop?lostrib

This thread just fails. This guy doesn't know much about hardware (doesn't even know what TurboBoost is, not that it really does anything that helps enough to care). Mobile GPUs are just... not good.

Tom's Hardware GPU hierarchy is flawed. Btw, PS3's RSX has the same GPUclock speed as Geforce 7900M GTX i.e. G71 @500Mhz. RSX's ROPs(raster ops units)is about Geforce 7600 GT levels.

My Radeon HD 5730M = Radeon HD 5570 desktop blows away Geforce 7900GTX 512MB.

In 3DMarks 2006, Radeon HD 5730M scores about 8060 points while Geforce 7900GTX 512MB scores about 5200 points.

-100000000000000000000000000000000000/10.

Get out, baby's first troll.

Why do gaming PCs with better hardware than PS3 or 360 have games that run so bad, and look even worse at 720p? I mean UC3 looks so crisp compared to my crysis or gta4 on pc. I mean even with a $1000 pc, games don't look as good as UC3 without a performance hit. Why is that? I'm just wondering....not hating.

UNcartMe

On similar data assets, your GT540M plays Crysis 2 or BattleField 3 better than PS3's version. Btw, Battlefield 3's deferred rendering engine runs on SPUs.

[QUOTE="themyth01"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]well i didn't really buy it for gaming, because those cost a butt load. also it has turbo boost or something like that. and i'm pretty sure they are better than ps3 hardware. i think it's because they weren't optimized for my processor. do you know what games run well on i7 and 540m?

UNcartMe

evidently you dont

[QUOTE="UNcartMe"]what are your specs? and to me that doesn't look too good. i mean the textures and effects kill ps3, but it seems laggy and has a lot of screen tearing and stuff! ugh i hate the way it looks when moving the camera with a mouse.RyviusARC

On similar city scape scenes, refer to Mirror's Edge.

i just made crysis run and look well on my laptop/hdtv. on the res i put 1176x664 which my tv upscaled to 1280x720! i put 1280x720 setting, but my tv says not supported for some reason. next i made sure that my laptop was plugged in, then i closed the lid of my laptop and put it on full screen.

I have everything on high except medium shadow, medium physics, low post processing, medium water quality, and medium motion blur. vsync off, aa off as well. it runs super smooth with slight screen tearing and looks very good!

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]nvidia gt540m gpu 1gb of memory intel i7 @ 2.0GHz 6gb ram. i mean these specs are already better than ps3 aren't they? UNcartMe

well i rally didnt by it 4 gamin butt My $600 ps3 plays uncharted3 on my 60in tv like crap.

Why do gaming PCs with better hardware than PS3 or 360 have games that run so bad, and look even worse at 720p? I mean UC3 looks so crisp compared to my crysis or gta4 on pc. I mean even with a $1000 pc, games don't look as good as UC3 without a performance hit. Why is that? I'm just wondering....not hating.

UNcartMe

I know what you mean. Even with a decent pc you still experience a lot of fps hiccups and whatnot. The increased resolution can also glarify the lower resolution texture assets. People need to start posting videos instead of pics, from the pc games. I'm not doubting how much better the games can look a lot of the times, but I wonder who is actually playing them proper.

Can't believe so many have fallen for this post! Looks at user level, amount of posts and then users forum name. ccagracing

Optimisation of the hardware.

Optimisation of the hardware.BigBoss154

Why do gaming PCs with better hardware than PS3 or 360 have games that run so bad, and look even worse at 720p? I mean UC3 looks so crisp compared to my crysis or gta4 on pc. I mean even with a $1000 pc, games don't look as good as UC3 without a performance hit. Why is that? I'm just wondering....not hating.

UNcartMe

95% of PC Gamers run games in a higher resolution than 720p. 24% run games in 1080p, which has twice the amount of pixels as 720p. That's twice as crisp. Every single game on the PS3 looks like a blurry jagged mess compared to the PC counterpart...and that's before we even talk about the FPS and the rest of the settings. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

PC Gamers were using higher resolutions than 720p regularly 10 years ago.

Source - Steam Hardware survey.

Why do gaming PCs with better hardware than PS3 or 360 have games that run so bad, and look even worse at 720p? I mean UC3 looks so crisp compared to my crysis or gta4 on pc. I mean even with a $1000 pc, games don't look as good as UC3 without a performance hit. Why is that? I'm just wondering....not hating.

UNcartMe

Because PC gamers think graphics = resolution

They post pictures of Crysis and that fugly "realistic" GTA mod thinking they're impressing people.

Crysis is about as good as Crysis 2 ie they both suck.

Witcher 2 also sucks.

Of course not all PC games suck, there's quite a few good ones, but they're good in the sense that they are deep and rich, not that they look as good as Uncharted or Heavy Rain.

Typical console thinking. The affordable laptop PC equals the best that PC gaming has to offer. For someone who "knows" about hardware you should be able to realize that laptops don't exactly provide the best in computing power. They are meant for portability and convenience. The same as a console. If you were to use around the same amount of money on desktop hardware you would see a remarkable increase in quality and performance.

Typical console thinking. The affordable laptop PC equals the best that PC gaming has to offer. For someone who "knows" about hardware you should be able to realize that laptops don't exactly provide the best in computing power. They are meant for portability and convenience. The same as a console. If you were to use around the same amount of money on desktop hardware you would see a remarkable increase in quality and performance.

menes777

[QUOTE="menes777"]

Typical console thinking. The affordable laptop PC equals the best that PC gaming has to offer. For someone who "knows" about hardware you should be able to realize that laptops don't exactly provide the best in computing power. They are meant for portability and convenience. The same as a console. If you were to use around the same amount of money on desktop hardware you would see a remarkable increase in quality and performance.

BibiMaghoo

True, but still the point remains. Laptops are more for convenience and not for power. You get people who buy a laptop (PC) thinking that they are going to get better performance but end up disappointed because they didn't want to spend the amount you would need to get high level performance. They don't understand that if you want cheap and powerful you can't get a laptop, you need to custom build a desktop. Powerful laptop and affordable prices just don't go together, but to make a benchmark off of that and claim you know about hardware is just false.

Yes, there are some really great laptops for gaming out there if you want to pay the price. The problem is that most people don't want to pay that price (or can't afford to).

They post pictures of Crysis and that fugly "realistic" GTA mod thinking they're impressing people.ZombieKiller7

It does not take rocket science to understand whats behind the hood of the PS3 and a PC. PS3 only has 512mb of memory that's separated into 256mb and 256mb for system and video use. Also The Video memory used only does 22 Gb/s, and the GPU (RSX) in the PS3 is a gimped(downgraded) G70 chipset (Geforce 7800).

A video card with higher memory bandwidth can draw faster and draw higher quality images which means at 22GB/s and its 256mb of memory limits the PS3 in resolutions, draw distances,amount of objects rendered at any scene, and texture quality. (The Xbox 360 is in the same boat as the PS3) The 7800GTX from 2005 has 512mb of memory and does 52GB/s memory bandwidth. Any high end GPU from 2006 onward just decimates The PS3 and 360's graphical capabilities.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]They post pictures of Crysis and that fugly "realistic" GTA mod thinking they're impressing people.RyviusARC

Yes, fugly and boorish.

Don't you think that if the devs wanted "realistic" cars they would have put them in?

What's next, you gonna use a mod to replace Niko Belic with pictures of George Clooney?

Also stop spamming the forums with that trash.

[QUOTE="ccagracing"]Can't believe so many have fallen for this post! Looks at user level, amount of posts and then users forum name. BibiMaghoo

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]They post pictures of Crysis and that fugly "realistic" GTA mod thinking they're impressing people.ZombieKiller7

Yes, fugly and boorish.

Don't you think that if the devs wanted "realistic" cars they would have put them in?

What's next, you gonna use a mod to replace Niko Belic with pictures of George Clooney?

Also stop spamming the forums with that trash.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"] ....yah fugly.....right.04dcarraher

Yes, fugly and boorish.

Don't you think that if the devs wanted "realistic" cars they would have put them in?

What's next, you gonna use a mod to replace Niko Belic with pictures of George Clooney?

Also stop spamming the forums with that trash.

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"][QUOTE="ccagracing"]Can't believe so many have fallen for this post! Looks at user level, amount of posts and then users forum name. mitu123

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] You are just jealous plain and simple. ZombieKiller7

Yes, I live in Africa on 50 cents a day.

We don't have PC's here, just crappy consoles.

My name is Manmeat, would you be my sponsor?

For less than the price of a cup of coffee, I could be playing a pirated copy of GTA IV with the realism mod.

Kevin Butler is here, he wants to touch my pee pee. I have to go now.

I love how people are comparing a game like Uncharted 3 which is EXTREMELY linear to a game like Crysis that is open ended. Of course Uncharted looks great they only have to worry about small areas instead of generating a huge map like Crysis.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Yes, I live in Africa on 50 cents a day.

We don't have PC's here, just crappy consoles.

My name is Manmeat, would you be my sponsor?

For less than the price of a cup of coffee, I could be playing a pirated copy of GTA IV with the realism mod.

Kevin Butler is here, he wants to touch my pee pee. I have to go now.

ZombieKiller7

You retards do understand that I own a PC right?

[QUOTE="wis3boi"] what an intelligent and mature comeback for someone who just got proven the capabilities of a PC gameRyviusARC

Loyalty to one's own preferences maybe.

I'm not the one trying to talk you into liking anything.

You're trying to talk me into liking what you like.

Capiche?

I honestly don't care what system people play on, but I'm dealing with elitist douchenuggets that can't leave other people alone, that have to bash their systems and say "nya nya look at our version" like some third grader.

Graphics and resolution is not the same thing.

When there is artwork involved and aesthetics, it's possible for a low rez game to make you say 'wow, that looks great.'

Yep, I'm totally a retard Help me. I'm in serious peril.wis3boi

What an intelligent and mature comeback for someone who just got proven the capabilities of console gaming.

nyuk nyuk nyuk

[QUOTE="themyth01"] Compared to Crysis??? hmm... yeah..UNcartMe

Not really, no. You have a laptop that was not meant for gaming.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="Marka1700"]Gaming grade hardware for laptops is significantly more expansive then desktop.ferret-gamer

90% of people would be better served with a cheap, but powerflul desktop (can be small form factor if space is a concern, you don't need a full tower with 10 hard drives after all). and a truly mobile platform as a sidekick. That could be a smartphone or a tablet for most, mabe an ultra thin notebook for others.

But no, instead people buy into the whole, MUST BE A LAPTOP! mentality and end up buyong a chepa one that falls short on the performance they want, or a behemoth that over heats, and is cumbersome to move around.

90% of people would be better served with a cheap, but powerflul desktop (can be small form factor if space is a concern, you don't need a full tower with 10 hard drives after all). and a truly mobile platform as a sidekick. That could be a smartphone or a tablet for most, mabe an ultra thin notebook for others.

But no, instead people buy into the whole, MUST BE A LAPTOP! mentality and end up buyong a chepa one that falls short on the performance they want, or a behemoth that over heats, and is cumbersome to move around.

Kinthalis

90% of people would be better served with a cheap, but powerflul desktop (can be small form factor if space is a concern, you don't need a full tower with 10 hard drives after all). and a truly mobile platform as a sidekick. That could be a smartphone or a tablet for most, mabe an ultra thin notebook for others.

But no, instead people buy into the whole, MUST BE A LAPTOP! mentality and end up buyong a chepa one that falls short on the performance they want, or a behemoth that over heats, and is cumbersome to move around.

Kinthalis

GT540M is NVIDIA's best 35 watt level GPU. Radeon HD 5730M/6570M is about same level as GT540M, but consumes 26 watts.

Radeon HD 5830M consumes 25 watts.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

90% of people would be better served with a cheap, but powerflul desktop (can be small form factor if space is a concern, you don't need a full tower with 10 hard drives after all). and a truly mobile platform as a sidekick. That could be a smartphone or a tablet for most, mabe an ultra thin notebook for others.

But no, instead people buy into the whole, MUST BE A LAPTOP! mentality and end up buyong a chepa one that falls short on the performance they want, or a behemoth that over heats, and is cumbersome to move around.

adamosmaki

ARM Cortex A9's SunSpider benchmarks says Hi.

SunSpider JavaScript benchmark result for Intel Atom Z670 vs ARM Cortex A9 Dual Core. Both has Android 3.1

-------

Using Android 3.0.1

(Smaller is better)

True mobile/"on the road" PC gaming is delivered by AMD A8 APUs. I'm waiting for AMD Trinity APU.

Tom's hardware link

The power use in the above graph is a result of a controlled test on an external monitor, so we repeated this metric again, this time using the laptop's own display. The A8-3500M laptop lasted two hours and 12 minutes. Assuming the Intel laptop used the exact same battery, it would run for one hour and 22 minutes.

This is very impressive. Not only does the A8-3500M get about twice as much time out of its battery, it does so while delivering far better graphics performance. The implications of this are profound: a Llano laptop user might be able to play a mainstream 3D game for an entire two-hour flight with decent frame rates, while the Intel Core i5-based platform would only last for half of the flight with choppy performance. There does, in fact, seem to be validity in AMD's excitement over its improved power story, and of course this is a real advantage when it comes to mobile devices

Killzone 3 perhaps but not so much Uncharted 3

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"][QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

90% of people would be better served with a cheap, but powerflul desktop (can be small form factor if space is a concern, you don't need a full tower with 10 hard drives after all). and a truly mobile platform as a sidekick. That could be a smartphone or a tablet for most, mabe an ultra thin notebook for others.

But no, instead people buy into the whole, MUST BE A LAPTOP! mentality and end up buyong a chepa one that falls short on the performance they want, or a behemoth that over heats, and is cumbersome to move around.

ronvalencia

True mobile/"on the road" PC gaming is delivered by AMD A8 APUs. I'm waiting for AMD Trinity APU.

Tom's hardware link

The power use in the above graph is a result of a controlled test on an external monitor, so we repeated this metric again, this time using the laptop's own display. The A8-3500M laptop lasted two hours and 12 minutes. Assuming the Intel laptop used the exact same battery, it would run for one hour and 22 minutes.

This is very impressive. Not only does the A8-3500M get about twice as much time out of its battery, it does so while delivering far better graphics performance. The implications of this are profound: a Llano laptop user might be able to play a mainstream 3D game for an entire two-hour flight with decent frame rates, while the Intel Core i5-based platform would only last for half of the flight with choppy performance. There does, in fact, seem to be validity in AMD's excitement over its improved power story, and of course this is a real advantage when it comes to mobile devices

That's what my home Theater PC runs. And I'm satisfied with the performance. A bit better than consoles in GPU, way better than consoles in CPU, and does all those other great home theater PC stuff. The A8 chip only ran me $99 on a sale too.