Playstation3/Xbox360 vs Gaming PC (directx10)

[Bvlgari]

me and my friend were talking today and he said that you can get better graphics than the ps3/xbox360 with a custom built gaming rig. I was wondering if there is any truth to it.

On the side note, I have this custom pc;

AMD Athlon 64 x2 Dual-Core 6000+
2gb 800 memory
250gb harddrive
Geforce 8600 GT 256mb Graphics Card
Geforce 6100sm-m Motherboard

I was wondering how close will my pc get to ps3 graphics on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the closest). I know its probably far, but just wondering.

 

[Stormy]

Graphics wise I would say its an even playing field between pcs and consoles at this point in time but over the next year or so the PC will push ahead with DX10 and just more power.

The problem is to get a rig that can churn out the graphics its going to cost a bundle of cash!

 

[Gray Fox]

Get yourself a better card and yes you will have better graphics. That said, you will also have far fever new AAA titles.

 

[-Psy-]

In short: Yes, Gaming PC > Consoles.

 

[Kester^]

Consoles live behind top of the range PCs. Fact. They are built using the same tech as PCs. So when a console is deemed finished, the hardware developers keep working and bring out newer tech for the PC.

The problem lies where you can get a PS3 for $600 and a top of the range PC will cost at least $2000.

 

[-Psy-]

I got my PC for ?450. I had it since September and it hasn't let me down since.

Building your own PC is a hell of a lot better then buying one already-built.

 

[soulslicer]

just wait a little longer. quad core will be out, and even the pc processors will beat the consoles..

 

[Rapstah]

It's one or three dots, Slicer, one or three. Two isn't humanly possible.

And yes, just check the specs of a 360 and get a computer with better components.

 

[Warbie]

Get yourself a better card and yes you will have better graphics. That said, you will also have far fever new AAA titles.

Which pretty much sums it up nicely.

The pc always has the potential to produce better visuals, the problem is a rather serious lack of decent games that realise this and aesthetic variety. It's been quite a while since a pc game has made me sit back and think, 'wow, that looks the nuts'. Happens quite often with console games.

 

[Shift]

Ill be damned if im spending 2k for a PC, consoles ftw.

 

[The Brick]

People are forgetting that you need a $3000 hdtv to play them games on those graphics anyway. Console = cheap my ass.

 

[Pulse]

People are forgetting that you need a $3000 hdtv to play them games on those graphics anyway. Console = cheap my ass.

Exactly. My mate has a 360 and it looked ****ing shoddy on his small TV in his bedroom, that was until his mother had to go out and buy him a ?900 HDTV to have in their living room.

I'd much rather a PC for gaming and everything else.

 

[Warbie]

Or, just use your monitor? PS3 and 360 look great on these. Large tvs also have more use than just gaming. The 'you have to buy an expensive tele' argument completely falls on its arse.

 

[Kester^]

Ill be damned if im spending 2k for a PC, consoles ftw.

You're British, so it'd be around ?1000.

 

[lePobz]

It's possible, if you have a specced up PC (over 1,000 gbp) to get better graphics at better framerates than you can get on a console... The down-side is that no developer is willing to make games that make the most of this hardware. Why? Because the enthusiast is less than 5 per cent of the market. Developers cater for the majority - and as such, they have to cater for old hardware... The model details, texture resolutions etc all suffer as a result. The benefit of a console is that the hardware is pre defined, and doesn't change. Developers can make the most of what is there. This also allows them to distribute the processing power much more efficiently for the different aspects of the software for the best results

For the best end-user package, You do get a better experience on a console - and it's considerably cheaper than a top of the range PC.

 

[Ravioli]

the 8800 Ultra is twice as powerfull as the PS3 GPU just to let you know. Not really sure about other specs.

Besides, PCs are big and large with lots of airflow and fans for cooling, a consol is a small and cramped box with things stuffed in it, so things get hot with good hardware, therefore they cant put so good hardware in there because it will just overheat. With a PC you can put the best of the best in there and keep it cool.

 

[knut]

Or, just use your monitor? PS3 and 360 look great on these. Large tvs also have more use than just gaming. The 'you have to buy an expensive tele' argument completely falls on its arse.

QFT. Running my 360 on a 17'' ?50 LCD monitor - looks fantastic. Sub par with my friends HDTV and even that's pretty dark sometimes. Love playing games on this.

 

[phantomdesign]

Consoles have the advantage of being "simplistic." My main beef with consoles is...

[1] It's not an open market. For example, with the XBOX 360, Microsoft controls all game releases, gets a cut of all games, controls their internet access, controls MOD-ability, etc...

[2] "Politics" . . . . all these "exclusive ____ platform releases" because someone paid off ____ gaming company make me mad.

[3] Numerous games seem to be held back by consoles; their controls, technology, graphics, release dates, interface, etc. (Example: TES4 Oblivion)

Recent consoles have somewhat leveled the playing field (temporarily) allowing consoles to support improved shaders, higher-res textures, higher-res displays, and controls have improved somewhat. They're still inferior to PC, but hopefully this means they won't be hurting the PC-releases as much.

 

[Shift]

You dont need some expensive HDTV to get full benefit of the graphics, I use mine with my large flat screen PC monitor which cost around 120 pounds, and the picture is crystal clear.

The consoles have exellent graphics and always will have exellent graphics power, even if the PCs go further with it in its time. But great games will continue to come out with it, there is no need to keep throwing money at hardware to keep up with the specs. You can just the game, stick it in, and it runs how it should run, no worries.

In terms of value for money, the X360 wins by miles, you pay your what? 300 quid max for the console and extras, have your online play, and obviously buy your games and thats it. At the cost of today's and the future's equipment, the total money spent on new hardware added up would be absultely shocking, and that is so you can merely play games with a high FPS and exellent graphics, if you can get that with an XBOX 360, then the PC really, really, really aint worth the money at all imo.

 

[Warbie]

Not only is the expense if running a decent pc getting ridiculous, the amount of quality games being released drops every year. The current pc lineup is dire and tiny compared to the consoles - which can all be purchased for cheaper than a DX10 rig.

 

[CyberPitz]

Consoles live behind top of the range PCs. Fact. They are built using the same tech as PCs. So when a console is deemed finished, the hardware developers keep working and bring out newer tech for the PC.

The problem lies where you can get a PS3 for $600 and a top of the range PC will cost at least $2000.

I've never came close to spending 2000 on a new computer, unless I decided I wanted a new sound system, big ol' monitor, and some more of the works.

Hell, my computer only cost me 750 bucks, and I got a case, motherboard, cpu, video card, ram, PSU. And I can't QUITE remember the specs off the top of my head, but they can play games like BF2, Prey, Quake 4 on all maximum. They aren't TOO intensive games, but still,l gives you an idea of what I'm running.

This really is nothing more than a, "What are you spending $2,000 on?" reply.