Console and PC specs vs. performance 31 replies

Please wait...

extantrifler

FPS is my Life

50 XP

1st May 2004

0 Uploads

291 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Why is it that when the original Xbox only had a Geforce 3 and a 733mhz Pentium 3, it could use Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 level graphics?

Those specs on a PC wouldn't run shit.

So does that mean that the PS3's GPU, which is somewhere near a 7800 (PlayStation 3 GPU More Powerful than GeForce 7800! - Xbox), will be able to play games with much better graphics than a PC with a 7800?

If so, why?




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

The original XBOX wasn't bloated with a full operating system, meaning that it could dedicate the entirety of its system resources to the game at hand. On a side note, even though it was capable of playing HL2 it didn't perform spectacularly well - load times were abysmal and the graphics sub-par compared to the PC edition.

As for the PS3, yes it is more powerful than an PC with the nearest equivalent of its GPU, for two reasons: As above, the PS3 does not run its operating system (or at least the entirety of it) alongside the game you are playing, freeing up resources for use ingame and secondly the PS3's Cell processor is many, many, many times more powerful than what you'd see in a desktop computer. It has 8 cores (well, in theory - only seven are in use at any one time, the eighth was disabled to improve production yields), runs at 3.2GHz and has an operational speed of around 2 teraflops - that puts it amongst entry-level supercomputers.




UNDIESRULES

Waffle-Sprocket is broke

11,795 XP

23rd November 2003

0 Uploads

1,097 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Also the games on consoles rarely go outside of the 20-30 fps range meaning they can increase some of the settings without too much of a hit, whereas a pc, we like to ramp up the settings to silly frame rates. TBH i would like to see any console game that looks better than a pc game equivelant. They do look good, no doubt about it, but personally i dont think they look better by a long shot.

And bear in mind that article is aimed at comparing the PS3 to a 7800 series card which is now 2 years old and long since been superceded by a lot of new gfx cards.




Rookie VIP Member

128,030 XP

3rd May 2005

0 Uploads

11,953 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

Erm...have you played Gears of War on the 360, or MotorStorm on the PS3? :uhm:




extantrifler

FPS is my Life

50 XP

1st May 2004

0 Uploads

291 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

Operating Systems really take up that much power? They don't change when a game is running?

Seems kinda silly that PCs have so much unused power. That's a rip-off. At least from the perspective of a gamer.

Is there an OS that is minimalistic?




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

It's also worth noting that console games aren't generally as good looking as their PC counterparts. Standard TV, for example, has a resolution of around 700x500 depending on where you live and what system is used for TV there. That puts the resolution slightly above the monitor that came with our first PC...in 1992.

Halo running at 700x500 with lower settings is going to take less power to run than Halo running at 1600x1200 with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. But having said that, my Pentium 3 and GeForce 3 could run Halo and make it look nicer than the XBOX version...despite me only having the 533MHz Pentium 3.

And yes, there are operating systems that require less resources than Windows. However, playing games on them can be a little difficult (often impossible), which in your case defies the point since presumably that's what you'd want to do with it.




ConstanceJill

Huh yeah, whatever ^^

38,761 XP

6th December 2006

0 Uploads

3,246 Posts

1 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Depends which games you want to play :D You can play many (old or old looking ^^' ) games on FreeDOS :p




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago
extantriflerOperating Systems really take up that much power? They don't change when a game is running?

Windows can use alot of ram just sitting on the desktop if its not tweaked or modified at all, More than you might think actually.

You can gain a little speed in games just by tweaking windows.

On a side note, even though it was capable of playing HL2 it didn't perform spectacularly well - load times were abysmal and the graphics sub-par compared to the PC edition.

I don't know, the Xbox versions load times seem pretty quick to me....




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

The "secret" about consoles is that they're a uniform platform. Every Xbox or PS3 or whatever else has the exact same hardware. As proprietary platforms, they also have a single driver set across all components. The compiler can therefore be very, very specific to the console in question.

They aren't more powerful, but the programs (games, in this case) make much more efficient use of the resources at their disposal. The hardware itself is no better or worse than that of a comparable PC.




UNDIESRULES

Waffle-Sprocket is broke

11,795 XP

23rd November 2003

0 Uploads

1,097 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago
Rookie;3742861Erm...have you played Gears of War on the 360, or MotorStorm on the PS3? :uhm:

M8, i honestly think Gears of War is overrated in the gfx department. And some cosole games are appalling, did you see the state of Far Cry for console? about 3 or 4 years old and they made it look like a PS1 game.