$600 PS3 vs $600 8800 GTX: An analysis 7 years later.

May want to change your thread title, ps3 not ps4

Also, going to need a lot more than just a graphics card in order to run games.

Which one was better?

Exclusvie GOTY titles

PS3: 3

PC: 0

10/10 games

PS3: 2

PC: 0

that is all.

$600 8800 GTX + $300 Intel CPU + $150 for RAM + $100 HDD + $50 case + $50 DVD-drive + $250 mobo + $100 for OS = $1500+

PS3 = $600.

Which was the better investment?

now try comparing a $600 PC (would be using a 7800GT, probably only 1gb of ram, Windows XP, a dual core CPU barely hitting 2ghz and so on) to a $600 PS3.

Hint: PS3 wins.

Old and dead argument.

3dfx voodoo 2 was baws. i never had one though. i had a voodoo1, and also a voodoo 3 3000.

OT: hard for me to compare the two. My 8800GT was three cards ago. Then again, PS3 let me down throughout the gen, but it's a good system now.

both ps3 and 8800gtx will slouch on current games.

**** man, i don't know the answer.

You must have a magical 8800gtx for it to run BF3 on max. I love when hermits just make up benchmarks.

$150 for Ram? $100 for HD ? $50 for DVD ? $250 mobo ? $300 Cpu ? Where the heck do you live ? Yeah is not USA cheap where i live but stuff are much more cheaper than your imaginary prices

Oh and try and do with a PS3 stuff you do with a Pc such as posting on SW. Pc even with a higher price better value ( let alone game prices )

Oh man good memories, I had that exact same card.. playing oblivion maxed out with mods, and stalker.. good stuff

I would have been very happy to get my PS4 in 2006.... even if it was $600... would have been a bargain. 8800GTX wouldn't even come close.

i also had an 8800GTX but sadly it went pop (after many many hundreds of hours of gaming). i had a 1280X1024 monitor so it was interesting to see how it stacked up to the consoles.

in multiplats like GTA4 it had the PS3 and 360 soundly beaten. it was handy that rockstar released a document which showed the console settings.

the only reason i ever replaced it was because it broke (upgraded to the also fantastic radeon 5850). i would like to see how it would fair against more modern games. GTA5, when it does arrive on PC, would be a very interesting comparison especially.

i dont think the R290X or 780 ti will manage 4K on multiplats for the next 7 years. they can do it with the likes of bioshock infinite simply because they are very easy games to run so those card have crap tons of excess horsepower.

but at 1080P those cards should see you right to the end of the gen.

the 8800GTX really was a cracker though.

*facepalm*

One is a console......... and one is a Graphics card.........

*facepalm*

Hey Guys which is better this car.....

Or this car engine....

Uh..this assumes that you have a desktop PC. Just like you would need a TV to play any consoles.

First it's not mines. Secondly, he posted video running it at Ultra/High at 720P as proof. So, what's not to believe outside your imaginary world?

Really??

All I did was post an equally moronic statement on 2 things that can't really be compared.....and you want to pick it apart? lol

PS3, it got a 10/10 game and 2 top 5 games of all time in video game history. Not to mention you cant play any games with just a GPU.

A pc from 2006 (same release year as the ps3) with a 8800 gtx, smokes the ps3 in terms of graphical output.

Such a pc runs games at like Tomb Raider (2013) 1080p medium settings, Crysis Warhead at 720p, which eats every ps3 game alive from a technical standpoint.

It can even run Battlefield 4 on low, still better than ps3 which run it at sub 720p at worse gfx than the lowest pc settings, with fewer players and less destruction.

With that said, at $600, the ps3 had great price/performance back in 2006, no similarly priced pc could compete.

History will repeat it self - I don't think that a $400 pc bought today will be able to keep up with the ps4 but a more expensive pc with a gtx 780ti / r9 290x has the ps4 beat by a very wide margin.

you can always sell the 8800 during its life span and upgrade... you weren't stuck with one gpu

An 8800GTX, alone, can't play games. You need other components as well. In terms of overall graphical horsepower, the 8800GTX is better. I had that card back in the day, and it was a beast.

$250 for a motherboard ? lol........... $300 for cpu? lol, $150 for ram? lol.. Who are you fooling?

The 8800 gtx was a very expensive card, but as it showed, you get what you pay for in pc gaming which is much better performance.

I always laugh when i hear console gamers say, Hey look at the earlier console titles graphics then compare them with late gen console graphics and scream "look at that optimization". Well here is the news flash, Optimization works on the PC end as well, Its not like pc graphics didn't improve as well using the same hardware. Optimization happens for both platforms, Ya sure consoles get more bare metal programing, but that can only take you so far.. The 8800gtx brute forced its way infront of the ps3.

Last gen one could make a case that console was the better buy at the beginning of the generation.

However unlike last gen, pcs this gen are way ahead. The r9 290 is just $400 and is about 3 times the power of the playstation 4 and is getting mantel support for quite a number of games.

I usually hear consolites utter ignorant statements like , "PC hardware goes obsolete very fast" as if it suddenly turns worthless. Here are the facts, Even with pc hardware going obsolete, that is only relative to the new hardware coming for the pc in the future. That does not mean all of a sudden the ps4 is going to be putting out more frames per second than an obsolete piece of computer hardware down the line . The R9 290 is way ahead of the ps4, and will stay WAY ahead of the ps4 for this ENTIRE console generation. Dont be stupid

I think the fact even the poll options are screwed up pretty much covers it.

There isn't a single exclusive game for the 8800 GTX.

Neither a proper understanding of what a GPU actually does, nor my own experiences (upgrading from a 6800 to an 9800 on a 3800+ CPU, then a 9800 to a 650 Ti on a Phenom II 965 CPU) have indicated a $600 GPU is worth it, except as part of a machine with an insanely powerful CPU and expensive, top of the line peripherals. And that system won't win any value arguments.

Every time I upgrade my GPU, I can increase the details without loosing much in terms of FPS. If I want to increase the frame rate performance in games, I get a better CPU.

Why would it not be compared? Which era are you living in? People now days have a desktop PC. Just like people have a television. All it would take is buying a 8800 GTX and popping it inside a PC.

So, instead of buying a PS3 people could have brought a 8800 GTX and popped it inside their PC. Simple concept.

By "exclusives, backwards compatibility" I mean PC exclusive and PC Backwards compatibility with older games such as the ones from the PS2 era.

Hmmm, GTA 5, the last of us, Journey, MGS4, Demon Souls, RDR, Uncharted series, Little big planet, valkyria chronicles, ni no kuni, Heavy Rain, God of war 3, etc vs...

starcraft 2? Some Wow Expansions? LMFAO

Um... no, it is not as simple as that.

I had an 8800gtx it could'nt even max crysis but it was beast of a card I still have to go ps4

By far the 8800GTX, it played all multiplats with better graphics and performance than ps3, more and better exclusives, and also cheaper.

PC games that supports AMD Mantle doesn't rely on monthly driver updates that targets a particular game title i.e. AMD Mantle APIs are more deterministic than Direct3D APIs.

AMD Mantle's deterministic nature would be important when the GPU aged over time.

From http://techreport.com/review/25683/delving-deeper-into-amd-mantle-api

"Katsman then decried the fact that driver optimizations are "almost required" for new games. Anyone who's ever had to download multiple beta driver updates to support a new PC game will be all too familiar with that problem. Developers are, in effect, unable to make their games work well by themselves. "I think that's actually very harmful and doesn't really contribute to users getting a good experience from the games they buy," said Katsman."

This is a nice thread and all, but why stop at comparing a GPU vs. a PS3? What about a pencil sharpener or two black dry erase markers?

Let's throw in a Toaster, a gift card to Walmart, and some 2006 Nike running shoes?

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2b2Tg Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2b2Tg/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 740 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($74.99 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: MSI FM2-A55M-E33 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($29.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Toshiba 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.99 @ Newegg)

Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card ($129.99 @ Newegg)

Case: HEC Enterprise MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($9.99 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: CoolMax 600W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Microcenter)

Optical Drive: LG UH12NS30 Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($34.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $394.92 (Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.) (Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 06:01 EST-0500)

----------

The GPU is MSI R7870-2GD5T/OC = 1050Mhz version ~= 2.688 TFLOPS from http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-r78702gd5toc

That was a waste of your time and mine posting all that jibberish. You've ignored my post and the TCs. Like many years and other posters have said regarding your posts over the years, I'm not convinced you read the TC or my post...again. I'm not sure why other than to be boring and/or defensive? You still didn't add in a toaster from 2006, pencil sharpener, some markers, Nike shoes, and a Walmart Gift card.

You should re-read the OP, the OP specifically calls for the GPU $600 8800 GTX from 2006. The name of this 2006 Comparison thread:

$600 PS4 vs $600 8800 GTX: A look back 7 years later. Which one was better?

You aren't on topic nor are you making any sense choosing to quote me as I was asking the TC why he didn't compare more and not less. You just wrote something random and quoted me with a post about a $400 PC for 2013. Waste of time and offtopic.

I get your game...to answer your question about hamburgers:

1lb ground beef

1 egg

1 sm onion diced

1/4 c bread crumbs

worshershire sauce

salt pepper

mix it all together w/ yor hands

form into patties

grill til done

top w/ cheese of your choice, serve on an onion kaiser roll

Have fun playing games with your little card.

Yeah, pop it inside a Pentinum 4, 1gb ram PC

You can't even play Battlefield 3 properly with an 8800GTX. An 8800GTX is worth about 10.00 today.

eBay

Both were great!!!

I owned a 8800gts and a 9800gt as replacement when that died (which was really a souped up 8800gts in speed by with a lower memory width 256bit, only down side). Both cards rocked in the games from 2000-2010.. but after 2010 came along the card sucked. I couldn't run games at 1920x1200, had to tone done effects and resolution and it had no direct x11 features, and the dx10 stuff was slow as all hell.

You can't compare it to the ps3 though, as they are two different things. The ps3 for me was for console style games(uncharted, metal gear, resistance, LBP, warhawk, etc..), not just exclusives, where as the pc was for exclusive and strategy games (Total War, Stalker, Neverwinter nights,etc..)

Both complemented themselves so well. In fact the entire gen I questioned why anyone would go a different route. You could play almost all the good games with a ps3 and a pc sporting a 8800 card. Where as if you had just a 360 or a 360 and PC with 8800 card you would of missed out on a ton of killer ps3 exclusive games.

I have moved on to the ps4 and the AMD 7870 ghz edition.... and will continue the PC / Playstation combo indefinatly... Mixed with a vita, 3ds and ipad.

That's a pretty hefty assumption, even by 2006 standards, considering most people own laptops.

Actually you can, and it runs and looks much better (both in SP and MP) than the ps3 version.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPA5ILGk0Jc

Anyone can reduce the resolution to bare minimum. Notice the video isn't even HD. Howdoes that choppy video look better than the Ps3 is beyond me. Did you read the comments?

Arnoud1987000: on these settings with your setup i had 5 fps.. means your a total liar

On my Q6600, 8GB Ram and 9800GTX+ Battelfield 3 ran like shit and that was it for me. Packed up the desktop and got a laptop that can play the one PC game that I still play Dawn of War II.

BF3 on ps3 is sub 720p, and looks worse than the pc version on lowest settings, has smaller MP maps, less players and still runs at 25-30fps.

A Core 2 duo at 3ghz and a 8800 gtx can run it at 720p with a mix of low a medium settings and still get 35-50fps.

So it looks better, has larger maps, more players and still runs at a higher frame rate with a 8800 gtx.

How is this disputable?

Edit: Found a youtube clip with an even worse pc than the one in my example (much slower cpu and a little slower gfx-card) and it runs BF3 MP, 720p low, at 30-50fps, lower while recording of course,
It's slower than the pc in my example and still runs the game better than the ps3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfhWNNW8XKs

@psymon100:

3dfx Voodoo 2 was my first graphics card! Older brother had a pair of Voodoo 1's if i remember correctly; they were so great :')

The PS4 is $400, not $600.

reread the thread and try again

@adamosmaki:

Yes $150 for RAM. 4gb of RAM TODAY in 2013 costs about $60 when not on special offer. 8gb of ram is easily $100+

Remember that we are talking about 2006. How much was 4gb of RAM back in 2006?

$50 for a DVD? yeah? it costs like $20-30 TODAY. I assume they cost anywhere from 30-50 back in the day, 7 years ago. $250 is not a lot for a mobo... my mobo cost me 300 dollars back in 2009. (total PC cost $1500) I don't really know what a good mobo cost back in 2006.

and as for a $300 CPU... How much did a quadcore 2.5ghz CPU cost back in 2006? Because I paid more than 300 dollars for my core i7 quad core back in 2009.

A 8800GTX PC would be like 2000-3000$ at least and it would not play Witcher 2 better than xbox 360

LOL, buying top PC hardware is like throwing money to the fireplace

If you actually read TC's text body, it has PS3 vs Geforce 8800 GTX. TC's point is R9-290 is like 8800 GTX maintaining superiority overtime vs consoles.

With this round, AMD made sure the PC with GCN doesn't have API/runtime and GPU hardware feature set disadvantage when compared to GCN era consoles.

AMD Mantle enabled games are not reliant on monthly driver updates that targets particular games i.e. the Mantle API/runtimes are deterministic like a CPU ISA.

The other posters doesn't concern me as both TC and yours doesn't directly address the reality that AMD has changed the ball game.

With this around, it's not like X1950 XTX vs Xbox 360 nor it's Geforce 8800 GTX. This round is like AMD released a scaled up Xenos GPU for the PC at same time as Xbox 360's Xenos. This is not ATI, it's AMD. AMD is attempting to do another "AMD64" on the GPU market i.e. AMD HSA and AMD Mantle. Refer to http://hsafoundation.com/ for HSA GpGPU.

For TC's point, you don't need a R9-290 to do a "GeForce 8800 GTX" vs PS3, but R9-290 will act like 8800 GTX against PS3, but with one difference i.e. AMD GCNs has similar APIs (via Mantle) as PS4's graphics APIs. AMD Mantle was designed to enable the recycling of PS4's optimisations for PCs with GCN (at this time).

AMD GCN greater than PS4's GCN would be

1. 7870 GE, R9-270/R9-270X = AMD Pitcairn XT and Curacao XT.

2. 7870 XT, 7950/7950 BE, 7970/7970GE, R9-280 = AMD Tahiti LE/Pro/XT/XT2 and soon XTL (revised R9-280X).

3. R9-290/R9-290X = AMD Hawaii Pro/XT.

You should reread TC's entire post before craping about with TC's title bar.

If we are comparing PC to any console, the one massive huge plus for PC Gaming is Backwards compatibility, period. I love the fact that when I buy a game on PC I will always (for the long foreseeable future) be able to boot that game up and play regardless of hardware. You just can't say that for the PS3 or 360. I just sold both consoles and all my games because of this very fact (not to mention to make room for the new ones), and why I've bought all games in the last year on PC when it was an option.

Exclusives and couch entertainment are great reasons to own and love consoles, but without my PC, gaming just wouldn't be the same or near complete.

Opinion/Preference wise, I must have my mouse and keyboard for FPS. Although I tolerate aiming with Sticks on consoles for their exclusives (Have always loved my Halo), it just doesn't come close to the fun I have playing that genre on the PC platform.

That's not true at all.

My $1500 gaming rig from 2009 runs EVERY SINGLE 7th generation game at maximum settings, with the highest resolution my cinema projector is capable of (1920x1200p) the only exception is Crysis 3 and Metro Last Light. (these games have better graphics than any PS4/X1 game)

If that isn't a good investment, I don't know what is.

Wait a moment, if your 2009 PC runs Witcher 2 in highest settings Ultra and above 1080p, then why would any gamer invest in a PC after 2009 ?

Ram has been cheap forever. 4 gb back in 2006 was less than $40 and you didnt need more than 4gb of ram ( in fact even nowdays 4gb are more than sufficient for 99% of games

A quad core q6600 was about 250.

A good mobo back then was pretty much the same price as a good mid-range mobo of now days ( $80-120 )

Dvd drives are $20 for the last 10 years

There are many reasons to upgrade even if I run Witcher 2 on ultra @1080p. I got around 30-40 fps by the way.

So you could upgrade for:

* higher FPS, 50-60 or go ridiculous and get 120-144 fps for 120hz/144hz displays...

* Higher resolution, loads of PC gamers game on computer monitors, not projectors like I do. a 27" monitor is typically 2560x1440p resolution. and a 30" 2560x1600p

* 4K is coming, my 2009 PC won't be ready to run games on high/ultra @4K resolution.

* Futureproofing your PC. Next gen is here. Direct X 12 will come some time this gen. Maybe other things too.

* multiple monitor gaming. I cant even imagine how my PC would run a game like TW2 or Crysis on 3 monitors. Would need way too much power.

So for my purpose (gaming on 1080p projector @106 inches) and I don't demand higher FPS than 30, so my PC has sufficient still. I have no plans to upgrade until

A) I get a 4K projector (right now the cheapest 4K projector on the market is like $10,000 the Sony VW500ES)

B) Direct X 12 comes out and "revolutionizes" graphics as we know it, like tessellation and other Dx11 sort of did.

Which ever comes first. And when they come, I'll be ready to sell my PC for what its worth (probably $400+) and invest in a new $2000 system that handle every on max settings for years to come.