How to Build a PC that Can Kick the PS3′s Ass

When the Playstation 3 was released, most PC gamers didn’t have systems that could outperform the console. I, myself, was squeezing out every last bit of power I could from my Pentium 4 3.0 GHz, saving up to buy a powerful system that could last me another seven years. I watched as my gaming buddies switched to the next-gen consoles for their glorious graphics at a price that no PC could match.

That was over four years ago. Technology has advanced. Prices have dropped. Game developers are admitting that consoles can no longer compete with PCs in terms of graphical output.

Obviously, given an unlimited budget, building a PC that can outperform a PS3 is a trivial exercise. So as to not completely embarrass the PS3, let’s set one ground rule: the PC must cost approximately the same as a PS3. We’ll use the 320GB PS3 system, priced at $399.99, as our reference point.

Before we build the PC, let’s look at the PS3 specs to see what we have to beat:

Hard drive: 320GB SATA (5400 RPM)

Memory: 256MB XDR Main RAM, 256MB GDDR3 VRAM

Graphics card: 550 MHz NVIDIA/SCEI RSX ‘Reality Synthesizer’

CPU: 3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs

Optical drive: Blu-ray/DVD/CD drive, read only

What I must state straight off the bat is that you cannot directly compare the specs of a PS3 and a PC to determine which is superior. On a PS3, hard drive space is less important, for instance, as is system memory, because you’re not running an operating system like Windows 7. The video RAM and the graphics card are the most important factors at play here, as well as the CPU — however, due to the drastically different architecture between the custom-made PS3 CPU and PC CPUs, there’s no baseline for comparison.

Price points for PC components will be taken from newegg.com, without hunting for limited-time deals.

Without further ado, here are the components for a PC that can kick the PS3′s ass:

Case: While blinking LEDs and see-through walls look undeniably badass, they won’t help your PC beat the PS3. For $30, the Xigmatek ASGARD II B/S is a humble case that comes with one 120mm fan and has room for three more.

Motherboard: For $60, the ASRock M3A770DE is an inexpensive motherboard with a proven track record of stability and solid overclocking potential — if you’re into that sort of thing.

Power supply: Although it’s the heart of your PC, you needn’t spend a fortune on a PSU. For $30, the Cooler Master Elite 460W Power Supply may not be the most powerful PSU in terms of wattage, but it should be more than enough for our purposes, and most importantly, it’s from a reputable manufacturer. Be warned: if you ever want to upgrade to a top-of-the-line dual-GPU setup, this power supply won’t cut it.

Hard drive: For $40, the Seagate Barracuda 500GB (7200 RPM) has both more storage capacity and greater speed than the PS3′s 320GB HDD. Tests have shown that outfitting a PS3 with a 7200 RPM hard drive does shave seconds off read/write times, so no argument can be made that the 7200 RPM isn’t superior. While a 7200 RPM HDD may present an overheating risk in a PS3, a PC can handle it. The motherboard we chose is limited to SATA 3Gb/s, so the Barracuda won’t reach its full 6Gb/s, but for the price, you can’t go wrong.

Memory: For $38, the Crucial 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3 kit is a sufficient amount of RAM from a reliable manufacturer. For gaming purposes, 4GB is ample. Even if your operating system chews up 2GB of ram, your remaining 2GB is much more than the PS3′s RAM.

Optical drive: For $20, the Asus 24X DVD Burner is a good budget DVD drive that has both read and write capabilities.

CPU: Here comes the tricky part — with no basis for comparison due to the drastically different architecture of the PS3 CPU, we can only go with the best CPU that can fit our budget. For $75, the AMD Athlon II X3 445 is a triple-core processor with a 3.1GHz clock speed. High-end dual core systems are still capable of competing with modern quad cores when it comes to gaming, so don’t feel like you need to go quad to beat the PS3.

Graphics Card: the PS3′s GPU, based on Nvidia GeForce 7800 architecture, has been said to be roughly the equivalent of a 7900GT. That’s not difficult to beat. For $70, the Radeon HD 5670 512MB DDR5 blows the 7900GT out of the water. While you can get the same card — for the same price — with 1GB DDR3 ram, HD 5670s aren’t powerful enough to make use of all that memory. Opting for the card with faster memory rather than more memory is suggested in this case.

Grand total: For $363, you’ve built a system that can kick the PS3′s ass, with $37 to spare.

Now, if you’re willing to go a little above the $400 mark, then swap out that Radeon HD 5670 with a Radeon HD 5770 1GB DDR5 for $120. Your new total will be $413, which may be a little over budget, but definitely worth the extra power.

UPDATE: It has been pointed out that the PS3 can read blu-ray, while this PC cannot. There are other (legal) means to watch HD movies on your computer, but if you’re dead set on a blu-ray player, then for $60, you can grab the Samsung Black Blu-ray Combo. That’s $40 more than the Asus 24X DVD Burner, which brings our total up to $403 and exactly comparable to the price of a PS3.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

27 Comments on How to Build a PC that Can Kick the PS3′s Ass

CHoedy

On August 11, 2011 at 11:25 am

Really no point in this because who care if your PC has better stats then the PS3 if it wont play PC games.

Darkraidor

On August 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm

yes, we do know that consoles are compared to the PC. thx for reminding us.

Marty

On August 12, 2011 at 12:05 am

You forgot the main OS for PC, Windows 7 will cost ya another $100+. So now you have just blown your budget and some more. Unless your a pirate.

snake

On August 12, 2011 at 12:08 am

Ya but pc doesnt hav any awesome exclusive games like uncharted,Resistance,God of war and more.Those games kicks PC’S ASS!BTW why didnt u mention 360???

Marcos

On August 12, 2011 at 12:24 am

This is a good article. And I have always felt that PC’s offer a better long-term value when it comes to gaming. I kind of laugh when people get so excited about things like Netflix on consoles or Nintendo’s VirtualConsole (which is basically emulators). Even XBox Live features a lot of rehashes from the 32-bit and 16-bit era. Big deal. PC gamers have been enjoying all of that stuff for years.

As a side note, about the build you show here: The AsRock motherboards are solid. I just bought one and quite frankly, I’m very happy. My previous motherboard was Gigabyte Technologies and some of their overclocking features didn’t even work! The Asus drive is nice too, which I also own. As far the Triple core Athlon II X3, well I’ve still got an X2 and I still run a lot of the newest games with relative ease. I hope PC gaming comes back strong. And there is absolutely nothing that feels as good as building your own PC from the ground up. Well, maybe a FEW things feels better. But you know what I mean.

catfrog

On August 12, 2011 at 2:10 am

i come across these kinds of posts a lot and im always wondering how people think that theyre qualified to make their assumptions, but anyways, let me set you straight:

today, the ps3 isnt hard to beat, but your build doesnt come close.

ill start with the ps3.

the ps3 shines with its processor. the processor in the ps3 can definitely be beaten by modern processors, but those processors are far and few inbetween. it would probably cost 800$ for a processor made with conventional architecture to match the ps3 processor. the cell is a revolution in processing, cheaper, faster and more efficient than any other architecture known.

aside from the lecture though, the ps3s cell has a theoretical processing speed of about 27ghz, and because its on a console, that processing limit is much more within reach than anything that you’ll have on a pc. with that said the theoretical limit of the tri core that you mentioned will probably be around 10ghz, in realistic terms you wont get more than 5ghz processing power out of it for pc games though, its the nature of the beast, pc gaming is much more wasteful than console gaming.

the gpu will be where the s3 lacks, but the build you mentioned wont be able to pick up enough slack to actually produce a better visual in a modern game. modern games use things like physics engines and simulation engines, they use complex algorithms which carry out complex tasks, the ps3 can do these things without blinking, but for the pc build you mentioned you would need to scale the graphics down for the same thing, the processor cant handle what it needs to and for the most part developers dont even try to make the processor work for them in this way, they rely on gpu power much more than cpu power to make things happen and that makes your picture quality go down.

the build you mentioned, will be able to render better images on the fly if it doesnt have to run any other engines (like tracking bullet trajectory, explosion radii, shrapnel, other physics or accurate collision detection), but if a developer wants accurate collision detection, graphics take a hit, want bullets to be accurate? graphics take a hit? want a realistic explosion? graphics take a hit, want destructible environments? graphics take a hit? want a physics engine, dust or wind particles? graphics take a hit. the ps3 will never take a graphical hit because of these things unless a developer makes a lazy port, and because of that graphics in a comparable, modern game will be able to render better graphics on the ps3.

the graphical standard on the ps3 is unchanging, you can have the same standard of graphics on any game and still keep all the best features like accurate collision detection in place. with the pc you start with a very high standard of graphics and for every feature you put into the game, you bring the graphical standard down a few notches.

marty

On August 12, 2011 at 2:55 am

@catfrog – LOL

‘the ps3s cell has a theoretical processing speed of about 27ghz’

You clearly havn’t a clue. PS3′s Cell CPU Runs at 3.2Ghz no more. Thats all the 7 Cores(1PPE + Spu’s). Certaining not 27Ghz. I don’t know of any processor that has ran at 27Ghz, it would melt in a console case.

Catfrog is an idiot

On August 12, 2011 at 3:10 am

Lulz. The chips powering both the 360 & PS3 were picked up on the cheap by Microsoft & Sony when AMD beat intel to the punch with radically faster chipsets, before intel’s chips had even hit the market. Both chips were less powerful than what was available at the low-medium end of the PC market in 2004, let alone what is available today. The arguments you see online about the special magical properties of the “powerful cell chip” are complete nonsense. The idea that the cell chip is “revolution in processing” is quite laughable given its history I doubt you were aware of. Second-rate, throw-away parts that intel couldn’t sell in the PC marketplace.

m

On August 12, 2011 at 4:54 am

Well people buy PS3s for its exclusives and to play on their big screen TV.
PCs can’t do that too but its too much of a hassle and playing a PC game with a controller just doesn’t feel right. Multiplatform games like Call of Duty play better consoles.

Games like Battlefield 3 are coming to consoles as well. These days you don’t need a gaming PC. You’re not really missing much(except maybe MMOs)

m

On August 12, 2011 at 4:59 am

Another thing I forgot to add, this PC you just build is barely more powerful than a PS3. This PC is already pretty low-end. The whole point of building a PC is to build one that’s fast and powerful. The PC you just built can’t run Crysis in high settings at 60FPS, 1080p. Heck can it even run it in medium?

marty

On August 12, 2011 at 5:29 am

@m – Can’t even run games on low……..has no OS……….LOL

I say

On August 12, 2011 at 7:04 am

I’m going to build a new PC soon but I won’t buy an OS for it. I already bought one several years ago for my current PC. Why does anyone has to buy an OS for every PC he/she builds?

TRUTH BE TOLD

On August 12, 2011 at 9:21 am

I notice how the ot author doesn’t mention Xbox 360 OR the Wii in the headline or article. We all know a true built-up PC can smash ALL the consoles, but he chooses to flame PS3 owners.

I hope you get AIDS and you get trapped in a burning house, CJ Miozzi!

pedro

On August 12, 2011 at 10:46 am

ps3 is a ps2 upscaled and sold with lots of hype and lies.
cell is one power pc core and 7 aritmetical co processors that cant have direct access to RAM, so for each task the ppu must assign and access himself the memory.
about the quality of multi platform games only a stupid ass funboy can speak of comparable or superior console quality.
imagine also dumb ass, pc games have allways better AA, hi res textures, advanced physx, 1080p 60 fps on any game, 3d on any game also on 60fps and dont pay royalties to stupid sony so they become cheaper about 20 euro per title.
go wash yourselves babies, my 4 year old son plays ps3 but i play pc hardcore with an sli 580gtx core i7 4.5ghz.
thats quality
kiss

Ben

On August 12, 2011 at 12:07 pm

Yawn!

Personally, I believe that by the tail end of the next console generation or the generation after we will reach a graphical plateau. Then all the touted power of the P.C. will be meaningless when it’s no longer financially viable to push consoles or P.C.s to their limit.

@ the guy who calls himself catfrog is an idiot

On August 12, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Yes catfrog has a blurred perspective but you are the same as him you have NO clue what you are talking about.

Everything you mentioned NEVER happened its pure fantasy. How the hell did you invent a weird story like that ? Atleast someone with no clue about Chips could get the wrong impression 9*3.2ghz=27 ghz there is atleast some reason to make that assumption but everything you said has nothing to do with the real world.

Are you aware that INTEL has NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSOLES ? You do realize ALL Consoles have IBM CPUs .IBM produces among other things Server/Supercomputer ? Intel delievered ONCE a Cpu for a console that was a 733 mhz Celeron for the original XBOX. But fact is the IBM architecture is way better qualified for gaming then the x86 Architecture from Intel if you want to know why I could explain it but you wouldnt understand what I am talking about anyway. Just from the things you said I KNOW you have no clue at all same as the 27 ghz statement.

Cell was really powerful and such a hightech product that people started to buy PS3s for serverfarms and as Supercomputer like the US Airforce which bought thousends of them. Even our local University had 20 of them running as as a supercomputer. The Xenos and the Cell were both ServerCpus and had NO match in the Consumer market from Intel. .Multicore Architecture was a novelty by the time of the Consoles release. The Xenos with 3 cores for pc 2 cores was HIGHEND then the Cell with one PPE and 7 activated SPEs. capable to process 9 threads both CPUs were beasts and highest end by the time of their release and are STILL not outdated. The Cell works as CPU in a lot Servers and Supercomputers around the world. Sure an I7 from today is way stronger but back then it was really something.

Besides you cant compare the Cell to a Cpu anway its partially a Gpu the PPE is a “classic” Power PC Core with 2 Threads and can be compared to a regular single core the SPEs on the other Hand are strreaming cores like a gpus streamingcores (Gpus have hundreds of them) but the Spe is smarter then an ordinary Gpu streamingcore (dumber then a Cpu core though). Its great for simulations of physics (supercomputer) but can also do Gpu work pretty good.

so much to the rediculous trash you spewed here: ” Both chips were less powerful than what was available at the low-medium end of the PC market in 2004, let alone what is available today”

No PC was in 2004 even CLOSE to consoles. How old are you ? 12 ? 13 ? 16 ? If yes I apologize I shouldnt be so harsh to you you should learn about the stuff you are talking about and not base everything on your subjective impression. Maybe you were amazed by 2004 PCgraphics but believe me let it run like it run back then and you will be dissapointed just compare Unreal Tournament 2004 to Killzone or Halo its a whole other level.

To the Article yes its an option to a ps3 but it wont be THAT much better graphically also you need a 64 bit windows which will cost you and whats with shipping ? Costs with Windows 7 -64 Bit and Bluray = 500 Dollar (Vista/Windows 7 are required for upcoming games). Also the 399 is the Move bundle with Cam and Move. Besides you need a mouse and keyboard too adds another 20 Dollar also a webcam you get that too another 20 Dollar makes about 540 Dollar and you dont have PS3 exclusives/move.

If you want a PC buy it, If you want a console buy it but comparisons arent easy because they offer totally different experiences. And neither has less or more value objectively speaking it depends on what and how you want do things.

Hotnife

On August 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm

Amen well said let’s face it the whole thing is bias and one sided towards the PC you compare the most expensive PS3 bundle when any one with any sense would buy the cheapest bundle with the smaller drive and swap out the hard drive for a 500gb fo only $40 next up you have no OS you also have no mouse or keyboard you cant play blueray and your rig will be larger more noisy and use more power add to all of this the exclusives you can get on a PS3 and it’s not a comparasion at all !! In reality to really beat the PS3 your looking at spending $500-$600

Catfrog IS an idiot

On August 12, 2011 at 4:56 pm

Well, intel and IBM were bedfellows, I apologise if the exact architexture was IBM’s rather than intel. Doesn’t make any difference though.

Pretty much the history of the Cell chip tells all you need to know.

The Xbox 360 chip and the Cell chip were both designed by the same company. IBM.

They were designed to compete in the budget PC market against Celeron and Duron a market place IBM had been in for some years. You know the kind of thing, runs in your office desktop, retails for £30-£40.
Plays FPS games great, but struggles a bit with RTS. Cheap and cheerful, perfect for your mums laptop.

The Cell chip was the more expensive variant of the 360 chip design.
Both designed by IBM concurrently both of the same generation.

Two years before they were looking to go into production, AMD surprise launched it’s 64 bit processor range. This completely got one over on Intel and they became the industries fastest chip.

Intel caught offguard was forced to scrap an entire generation of chips that it could no longer sell in the market place and move directly on to it’s next pipelined project in order to compete. It’s own 64 bit CPU’s.

IBM was unable to financially weather this blow as Intel could and with their new generation of chips obselete before they were ever made; they abandoned CPU manufacture forever.

Soon after Sony and Microsoft, looking for bargain components for their new consoles lisenced the chips.

So there we have it. The PC chips that time forgot. The missing links so to speak. Two CPU’s that were unable to compete for the £30 PC CPU market 8 years ago and a lot of sales hype.

It’s a solid chip. Not to be sniffed at. At almost double the calculations of an Xbox, the 360 chip is directly comparable in computational power to a Celeron 1.4 GHZ chip. A Cell a little better. That has some serious options for gaming.

Utterly awesome compared to any other console on the market, a simply astounding leap from PS2, but notably below the mimimum range PC CPU available to buy in 2003.

Catfrog is an idiot

On August 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm

Pretty much the history of the Cell chip tells all you need to know.

The Xbox 360 chip and the Cell chip were both designed by the same company. IBM.

They were designed to compete in the budget PC market against Celeron and Duron a market place IBM had been in for some years. You know the kind of thing, runs in your office desktop, retails for £30-£40.
Plays FPS games great, but struggles a bit with RTS. Cheap and cheerful, perfect for your mums laptop.

The Cell chip was the more expensive variant of the 360 chip design.
Both designed by IBM concurrently both of the same generation.

Two years before they were looking to go into production, AMD surprise launched it’s 64 bit processor range. This completely got one over on Intel and they became the industries fastest chip.
Intel caught offguard was forced to scrap an entire generation of chips that it could no longer sell in the market place and move directly on to it’s next pipelined project in order to compete. It’s own 64 bit CPU’s.

IBM was unable to financially weather this blow as Intel could and with their new generation of chips obselete before they were ever made; they abandoned CPU manufacture forever.

Soon after Sony and Microsoft, looking for bargain components for their new consoles lisenced the chips.

So there we have it. The PC chips that time forgot. The missing links so to speak. Two CPU’s that were unable to compete for the £30 PC CPU market 6 years ago and a lot of sales hype.

It’s a solid chip. Not to be sniffed at. At almost double the calculations of an Xbox, the 360 chip is directly comparable in computational power to a Celeron 1.4 GHZ chip. A Cell a little better. That has some serious options for gaming.

Utterly awesome compared to any other console on the market, a simply astounding leap from PS2, but notably below the mimimum range PC CPU available to buy in 2003.

@ the guy who calls himself catfrog is an idiot

On August 12, 2011 at 10:52 pm

????

You are doing it again ! Where do you get those informations ? Its totaly wrong on so many levels I dont even know where to start:

” Well, intel and IBM were bedfellows, I apologise if the exact architexture was IBM’s rather than intel. Doesn’t make any difference though.”

Are you insane ? IBM and Intel bedfellows ? If you would say Sony and MS bedfellows then It would be the same as saying IBM and Intel are bedfellows. You just hope this is true to make your first statement somehow more credible but the stuff you said is even worse then the stuff you said in the first comment.

Let me tell you about IBM and Intel. IBM competes in a lot of ways with Intel as much as AMD and Intel. IBM produces processors for the industry NOT THE CONSUMER DIRECTLY. Windows CANT WORK WITH IBM CPUs. Ibm produced PowerPC Cpus for Apple once Apple was IBM only until a couple of years ago were Apple turned to Intel (which caused an outcry among Applefans,

IBM is highly succesful in what its doing producing electronic for proffessional use. Not for PCs
And Intel and IBM are direct competitors.

“They were designed to compete in the budget PC market against Celeron and Duron a market place IBM had been in for some years. You know the kind of thing, runs in your office desktop, retails for £30-£40.”

I dare you post this on pc forums. Please and please link it then here. This is delusional in a way I rarely seen before.

Its amazing how much factualy wrong stuff you can put in a sentence. Who told you this crap ? Someone had too you cant find this on the Internet or are you inventing it while writing ?

THEY WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR THE PC CONSUMER MARKET. Its impossible as I said WINDOWS CANT RUN WITH IBM CPUs its TOTALY DIFFERENT FROM INTEL CPUs.The Xenos and Cell were designed to be HIGHEND SERVER CPUs.The Cell was the strongest cpu ON EARTH.

“The Cell chip was the more expensive variant of the 360 chip design.”

No thats BS. The Cell and the Xenos share one element everything else is TOTALLY different. The Cell has one PPEthe Xenos has 3.

“Two years before they were looking to go into production, AMD surprise launched it’s 64 bit processor range. This completely got one over on Intel and they became the industries fastest chip.Intel caught offguard was forced to scrap an entire generation of chips that it could no longer sell in the market place and move directly on to it’s next pipelined project in order to compete. It’s own 64 bit CPU’s.”

IBM and Intel never produced a Cpu together you try to mix water and oil. IBM=Power PC Intel=x86 they are TOTALLY

64 Bit Cpus are maybe special for PC but not for consoles. Why do you think the Nintendo 64 was called 64 Bit console back in 1996. Besides the Cell has the PPe which is 64 bit and the SPEs which are 128 bit. so basicalky the Cell is a 64/128 bit Cpu. Power PC architecture is NOT LIKE X86 and has advantages 64 bit is NOT SPECIAL FOR IBM CPUs.

“IBM was unable to financially weather this blow as Intel could and with their new generation of chips obselete before they were ever made; they abandoned CPU manufacture forever.”

You are dreaming again.Slowly I get the impression you are from a parallel universe. IBM never recieved a financial blowthey never stopped producing Cpus. You do realize IBM has recently surpassed Microsoft in Marketvalue (mayy 2011) IBMs market value is 207 Billion MS is 206 Billion and Intel is 115 Billion (june 2011). IBM is bigger then Intel never recieved a financial blow due to failed consumer Cpus and never abandoned Cpu manufacturing actually the Wii U has an IBM Cpu again like the Wii and the Gamecube.

“Soon after Sony and Microsoft, looking for bargain components for their new consoles lisenced the chips.”

Sony developed together with IBM the Cell they invested Billions in development, MS just took an already existing high end server cpu.

“It’s a solid chip. Not to be sniffed at. At almost double the calculations of an Xbox, the 360 chip is directly comparable in computational power to a Celeron 1.4 GHZ chip. A Cell a little better. That has some serious options for gaming.”

I dont know if I should take you seriously
A 1.4 ghz Celeron has 0.36 gflop a Cell has 700 times (single precission) that both Xenos and Cell are hundreds of times more powerful.

BY THE TIME OF THE XBOX360 AND PS3 RELEASE YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO BUY A STRONGER CPU FOR YOUR PC BECAUSE THEY DIDNT EXIST BACK THEN.

“Utterly awesome compared to any other console on the market, a simply astounding leap from PS2, but notably below the mimimum range PC CPU available to buy in 2003.”

Damn boy if you knew how stupid this sounds you would never talk again. If you want confirmation how wrong you are and that everything you think is right infact is wrong go to any forum and show them your and my comments. I really shouldnt be a smart ass about this but the certainty you say everything somehow pisses me off. You will find nothing to back up your claims nothing you said is even remotly right.

Please tell me how old you are and dont lie. My guess is 13.

Catfrog is an idiot

On August 13, 2011 at 12:21 am

Wrong.

@ the guy who calls himself catfrog is an idiot

On August 13, 2011 at 10:00 am

Lol poor guy. Hopefully you learned something even though you cant admit it right now but next time you are going to say something about Computer Hardware please dont.

blue scarab

On November 15, 2011 at 11:02 pm

I know I’m a few months late with this comment but I must get it off my chest.

The author states that this ps3 beating computer is $363 but that is only for the components in the tower and not the whole computer.

You still need at least an 18.5″ LCD Monitor($85),a keyboard and mouse($15 for both) and Windows 7 software($80). Altogether it comes to $543.
If you pirate the software then the cost is $463.

Either way it costs at least $463 to beat the ps3 which is much more than the ps3 costs.The 320GB bundle now costs $350 and the 160GB ps3 costs $250.Computers can beat a ps3 but you have to spend much more to obtain equal or better performance from a pc.

The ps3 and xbox360 are the best value for money gaming machines you can get.For $250 you can get gaming performance that a $463 custom-built pc is required to beat and a ps3 has the latest games available for it whereas the latest pc versions of the same games won’t work so well on the machine you came up with.

Drassi

On January 21, 2012 at 3:14 pm

there is something i must say though, a PC can also run games from pretty much every other console because of emulators (takes a bit of time to set up and get working , but once done works great) this means that a pc can play at least 3 times as many games as a PS3 or Xbox or whatever you play on can. now even though some games don’t work as well on emulators as on their respective console, its still a noticeable factor.

Drahkir

On March 15, 2012 at 4:01 pm

This is very useful, I’ve been thinking about selling my PS3 to go towards a new gaming PC. I barely play my PS3 and the only game I’ve been playing on recently is Skyrim which takes forever to load compared to the PC. I wasn’t too sure on the PS3, near PC equivalent hardware so this was a useful read. My build is going to be a bit higher spec with an i5 2500k, 600W power, 8GB DDR3 RAM and a Geforce 560Ti

Ulises

On May 27, 2013 at 7:19 am

This PC could be built at around $400 in 2011, the year the article was published. But the PS3 was available in retail back in 2006. That’s a wait of 4 to 5 years to be able to build a PC competitive to the PS3. Who wants to wait that long?

Ron Whitaker

On May 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm

The current performance of the “next-gen” consoles can be trumped by a PC that costs $600 – $700 right now. Maybe less, if you’re diligent on sales. There’s never been a console that was superior to PCs at launch, because a console needs its hardware set and locked up to a year prior to launch. Meanwhile, PCs continue to advance while the console is being tested, developed, and refined. Once launch rolls around, the console hardware is over a year old, and it wasn’t bleeding edge to begin with.