I must just be stupid.

[Duvie]

There are several 1080i games available right now, as well as quite a few 720p only games.....I have played the 1080i games and I think they look as good as my PC...difference is I like the convenience of buying a game...placing it in drive and playing immediately...no driver updates, patches etc...Seems less buggy IMO...

 

[d3lt4]

Originally posted by: guoziming

Originally posted by: Jamie571
Remember 1080 is interlaced.

correction: 1080i is interlaced, 1080p (which ps3 supposedly supports) isn't.

i'm also surprised that no one has mentioned this- Sony takes a huge hit with every PS3 they sell. It costs Sony at least $1000 to produce each PS3, they just sell them at a lower price because no average consumer would buy a $1000 console. Sony takes hits on the console itself to get it disseminated, then makes big bucks on licensing fees when games are sold at $60+.

So a $2000 pc and a PS3 cost about as much to make, if these facts are right, but PS3's are optimized to do only one thing, play games, and that is what they are good at. PC's have to do everything, and so they cost alot.

I won't spend that much on either.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Duvie
There are several 1080i games available right now, as well as quite a few 720p only games.....I have played the 1080i games and I think they look as good as my PC...difference is I like the convenience of buying a game...placing it in drive and playing immediately...no driver updates, patches etc...Seems less buggy IMO...

Yeah but if there is a bug the there is no driver updates, patches ect ;-)

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Duvie
There are several 1080i games available right now, as well as quite a few 720p only games.....I have played the 1080i games and I think they look as good as my PC...difference is I like the convenience of buying a game...placing it in drive and playing immediately...no driver updates, patches etc...Seems less buggy IMO...

Yeah but if there is a bug the there is no driver updates, patches ect ;-)

Actually looking at how the xbox 360 work... I bet with xbox live you could in fact download patches....So I think that may not be a problem if it was needed....

 

[Markbnj]

Shows how little you know about gaming trends.

1080 lines is indeed not that high. Anyone running over 1024 x 768 is already in that neighborhood or exceeding it. But 1920 horizontal pixels is still the extreme upper end, and very few people are running games at that resolution. In fact very few systems can manage to run current titles at that resolution with maxed settings and good performance. I don't have numbers, but would bet it is in the <5% of all PC gamers range.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Duvie
There are several 1080i games available right now, as well as quite a few 720p only games.....I have played the 1080i games and I think they look as good as my PC...difference is I like the convenience of buying a game...placing it in drive and playing immediately...no driver updates, patches etc...Seems less buggy IMO...

Yeah but if there is a bug the there is no driver updates, patches ect ;-)

Actually looking at how the xbox 360 work... I bet with xbox live you could in fact download patches....So I think that may not be a problem if it was needed....

well then ;-)

I would tend to agree with you that it should be less buggy since the hardware stays same throughout the life of the machine.

 

[stardrek]

I can tell you that the Xbox 360 does indeed get patches from Xbox Live. My 360 has already downloaded a patch and a game, DOA:4 has also downloaded a patch for itself as well. I hope this does not lead to the same problem that has started to come with games in the PC market, where they sell a game that isn't really finished and use patches to fix the issues. Games need to come out when they are finished, not on a faux-timeline.

 

[darkdemyze]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Its just consoles are optimised for their hardware, hopefully vista maybe fixes the stupid Direct X so it works better. Hardware has so much potential, it just the crappy software cant use it properly.

Also they are loosing money on the consoles and making up on the game sales.

I agree with this. Simply put, a PC can do much more than just play games. I don't recall ps3 being able to program a database and manage server networks. Of course this being an extreme example, but the point is still there.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Duvie
There are several 1080i games available right now, as well as quite a few 720p only games.....I have played the 1080i games and I think they look as good as my PC...difference is I like the convenience of buying a game...placing it in drive and playing immediately...no driver updates, patches etc...Seems less buggy IMO...

Yeah but if there is a bug the there is no driver updates, patches ect ;-)

Actually looking at how the xbox 360 work... I bet with xbox live you could in fact download patches....So I think that may not be a problem if it was needed....

There are patches for games using xbox live. When I booted up Halo 2 on my 360 for the first time it had to download a bunch of updates to get to version 1.1. Also you do get new map packs and such the same way. I see consoles just for gaming. It's just so much more convenient to pop in a game and play it with 3 other friends who don't need to have a $1k computer to join you. I see that as a huge advantage. Computers do a hell of a lot more hence they cost more.

 

[anandtechrocks]

Personally I don't have an HD TV so IF i wanted a console that could give me as good of graphics as my PC then I would have to shell out $300-600 for the console and what... $2000 for a TV that supports 1080?

So... <$1000 for a computer that can play games in high resolution and look amazing or >$2000 for a console and a HD TV to play games in high resolution.

Also, I agree with what Mark said. Mods, custom maps, and such (RTS games too!) are what keep me on my PC.

 

[nyker96]

well it's cheaper but a truck load.

 

[Regs]

The 2500 dollar computer help build the 600 dollar PS3 and all its games.

 

[robertk2012]

I still dont see where you get 2500 from uless your buying a dull.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: thequinox
I am having a hard time understanding how a console (mainly the PS3) is capable of playing games at full 1080 HD resolution while some high end PCs have trouble with it.

I am currently planning on buying a new gaming PC. I patiently waited (and am still waiting) for the AM2 to be released ever since I heard of it. Then I heard of Conrow and... well that's a different story. Anyway, I have read a couple posts on this forum about the PS3's cell processor and most people conclude that it would be very powerful if taken advantage of (which is apparently very hard to do).

Will the PS3 match/beat a high end PC, in which the processor, video card, etc cost $600 each? Is so, then how? and why is it so cheap?

Wait until the PS3 is out before claiming it's doing 1080 HD while PCs can't. BTW, 1080 is only about equivalent to 1600x1200, so it's not that impressive of a res. (1920x1080 is slightly hgiher, but most likely most ps3 games will run at 1280x720 anyway)
So far, the PS3 looks to have a graphics chip about equal to a 7900GT.
The cpu, around the equivalent of a 1Ghz Celeron maybe with a physics accelerator strapped on. (except for more general purpose than the physics accelerator, but you can't compare 1 to 1, cell is designed for a completely different purpose than a pc cpu and their strengths are entirely different)

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I think that article may have been on anandtech, or perhaps arstechnica. The one on anandtech was pulled.
Anyhow, for the things that you'd use SSE for, I bet the xbox 360 and Cell cpus would beast a PC. However, 99.5% of game code in current games isn't SSE.

If the 3 core power pc chip the xbox 360 has is anything like a G5 then you are talking about a pretty powerful chip there.

The G5 is generally weaker than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 (except in very specific tasks, generally ones not related to gaming), each core of the x360 cpu is notably weaker than a g5, except in those tasks a g5 did comparatively well in which weren't gaming related.

So anyhow, when PS3 comes out, it will have a gpu that is mid range to upper mid range, a cpu that probably costs as much to produce as the top end pc cpus (though those $1000 fx and extreme edition chips cost nowhere near that much, considering a $300 cpu overclocked can usually match them), a paltry amount of memory (512MB), a very small harddrive, and very limited input/output ports. The $600 PS3 is probably the equivalent of a $700 or $800 PC. Oh wait, forgot the blue-ray drive, so yeah, that would bring it up to about a $1000 PC. Of course, then Sony will charge you an arm and a leg for any upgrades in functionality, like extra controllers, larger harddrives, memory ports, wifi internet. (though the premium version has the last two)

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: thequinox
I am having a hard time understanding how a console (mainly the PS3) is capable of playing games at full 1080 HD resolution while some high end PCs have trouble with it.

I am currently planning on buying a new gaming PC. I patiently waited (and am still waiting) for the AM2 to be released ever since I heard of it. Then I heard of Conrow and... well that's a different story. Anyway, I have read a couple posts on this forum about the PS3's cell processor and most people conclude that it would be very powerful if taken advantage of (which is apparently very hard to do).

Will the PS3 match/beat a high end PC, in which the processor, video card, etc cost $600 each? Is so, then how? and why is it so cheap?

Wait until the PS3 is out before claiming it's doing 1080 HD while PCs can't. BTW, 1080 is only about equivalent to 1600x1200, so it's not that impressive of a res. (1920x1080 is slightly hgiher, but most likely most ps3 games will run at 1280x720 anyway)
So far, the PS3 looks to have a graphics chip about equal to a 7900GT.
The cpu, around the equivalent of a 1Ghz Celeron maybe with a physics accelerator strapped on. (except for more general purpose than the physics accelerator, but you can't compare 1 to 1, cell is designed for a completely different purpose than a pc cpu and their strengths are entirely different)

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I think that article may have been on anandtech, or perhaps arstechnica. The one on anandtech was pulled.
Anyhow, for the things that you'd use SSE for, I bet the xbox 360 and Cell cpus would beast a PC. However, 99.5% of game code in current games isn't SSE.

If the 3 core power pc chip the xbox 360 has is anything like a G5 then you are talking about a pretty powerful chip there.

The G5 is generally weaker than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 (except in very specific tasks, generally ones not related to gaming), each core of the x360 cpu is notably weaker than a g5, except in those tasks a g5 did comparatively well in which weren't gaming related.

So anyhow, when PS3 comes out, it will have a gpu that is mid range to upper mid range, a cpu that probably costs as much to produce as the top end pc cpus (though those $1000 fx and extreme edition chips cost nowhere near that much, considering a $300 cpu overclocked can usually match them), a paltry amount of memory (512MB), a very small harddrive, and very limited input/output ports. The $600 PS3 is probably the equivalent of a $700 or $800 PC. Oh wait, forgot the blue-ray drive, so yeah, that would bring it up to about a $1000 PC. Of course, then Sony will charge you an arm and a leg for any upgrades in functionality, like extra controllers, larger harddrives, memory ports, wifi internet. (though the premium version has the last two)

#1 the cpu isnt the equivilent of a 1 ghz celeron.
#2 Im not sure where you got your information about the G5. The G5 is more powerful than any p4 and is clock for clock as fast as an amd 64 on average. You cant compare gaming performance do to a different platform and video cards and the fact that most games on macs werent designed to ever be played on a mac.

 

[AkumaX]

1080i ~~ 720p (in terms of quality, for the general consensus)

1080p w/ the $600 version

(but you'd have to pony up a hefty amount for a tv that supports 1080p)

btw, isn't 1080p going to be a pain in the @$$ for PCs? something like Vista+DRM+Vid Card that has HDMI + HDCP + LCD that supports HDMI + HDCP or some crap like that...

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: thequinox
I am having a hard time understanding how a console (mainly the PS3) is capable of playing games at full 1080 HD resolution while some high end PCs have trouble with it.

I am currently planning on buying a new gaming PC. I patiently waited (and am still waiting) for the AM2 to be released ever since I heard of it. Then I heard of Conrow and... well that's a different story. Anyway, I have read a couple posts on this forum about the PS3's cell processor and most people conclude that it would be very powerful if taken advantage of (which is apparently very hard to do).

Will the PS3 match/beat a high end PC, in which the processor, video card, etc cost $600 each? Is so, then how? and why is it so cheap?

Wait until the PS3 is out before claiming it's doing 1080 HD while PCs can't. BTW, 1080 is only about equivalent to 1600x1200, so it's not that impressive of a res. (1920x1080 is slightly hgiher, but most likely most ps3 games will run at 1280x720 anyway)
So far, the PS3 looks to have a graphics chip about equal to a 7900GT.
The cpu, around the equivalent of a 1Ghz Celeron maybe with a physics accelerator strapped on. (except for more general purpose than the physics accelerator, but you can't compare 1 to 1, cell is designed for a completely different purpose than a pc cpu and their strengths are entirely different)

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I think that article may have been on anandtech, or perhaps arstechnica. The one on anandtech was pulled.
Anyhow, for the things that you'd use SSE for, I bet the xbox 360 and Cell cpus would beast a PC. However, 99.5% of game code in current games isn't SSE.

If the 3 core power pc chip the xbox 360 has is anything like a G5 then you are talking about a pretty powerful chip there.

The G5 is generally weaker than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 (except in very specific tasks, generally ones not related to gaming), each core of the x360 cpu is notably weaker than a g5, except in those tasks a g5 did comparatively well in which weren't gaming related.

So anyhow, when PS3 comes out, it will have a gpu that is mid range to upper mid range, a cpu that probably costs as much to produce as the top end pc cpus (though those $1000 fx and extreme edition chips cost nowhere near that much, considering a $300 cpu overclocked can usually match them), a paltry amount of memory (512MB), a very small harddrive, and very limited input/output ports. The $600 PS3 is probably the equivalent of a $700 or $800 PC. Oh wait, forgot the blue-ray drive, so yeah, that would bring it up to about a $1000 PC. Of course, then Sony will charge you an arm and a leg for any upgrades in functionality, like extra controllers, larger harddrives, memory ports, wifi internet. (though the premium version has the last two)

#1 the cpu isnt the equivilent of a 1 ghz celeron.
#2 Im not sure where you got your information about the G5. The G5 is more powerful than any p4 and is clock for clock as fast as an amd 64 on average. You cant compare gaming performance do to a different platform and video cards and the fact that most games on macs werent designed to ever be played on a mac.

#1 I meant each core, and I'm referring to a Pentium 3 based Celeron, not a P4 based Celeron. Also, referring to typical PC code, if other tasks can be found for the cpu, such as audio encoding/decoding or image processing (which appears to be what most devs are doing, if they use the other cores at all), then the performance will be much higher.
#2 G5 seems to lose most real world benchmarks, even disregarding the gaming ones. It doesn't do all that well in a lot of synthetic ones either, though how much of its lackluster performance is due to being a weaker cpu and how much is due to having a much much worse performing chipset is unknown. (Apple's chipsets have about 3x the latency of Intel's best, so that could be a reason for poor performance, with a more up to date chipset, the G5 may get the equivalent of like a 500mhz boost)

1080i ~~ 720p (in terms of quality, for the general consensus)

I think in general consensus, 1080i is better, though 720p is preferred for 60fps material. Progressive scan is virtually worthless for 30fps material.

btw, isn't 1080p going to be a pain in the @$$ for PCs? something like Vista+DRM+Vid Card that has HDMI + HDCP + LCD that supports HDMI + HDCP or some crap like that...

Only for copy protected movies.

 

[imported_ST]

there's such nonsense on this thread, it's disturbing.

1. 1080i is not equivalent to 720p. since it is 1080 per every other frame, its more equivalent to a 540p setup. 1080p is a huge deal as the increase from present day DVD format of 480i is phenomenal. If you have ever seen a native 1080i broadcast at its full 1:! pixel resolution, it equivalent from the jump from EGA to SVGA.

2. going from 1280x1024 (1310720 pixels) to 1920x1080 (2073600) is a significant difference in pixel count (58% increase). This necesitates a lot more video processing power. Most computer video cards today choke hard on resolutions of 1600x1200 or more. To run 1920x1080 res comfortable, you'll need a 7900GT / 1800XT class (or better if you want all the goodies like AA/AF/HDR on).

3. The amount of present TV sets that support native 1:1 pixel mapped 1080p support is almost nil, and most are usually in excess of $2500 easily. Most present "HDTV" have a native res of 1376x768 or so, and scale down 1080i /psignals accordingly. This is one of the reasons the XBOX360 is limited to 720p output.

As for the PS3 vs. PC debate, I'm reserving judgment until I get actual PS3 reviews.....

 

[akugami]

For the PS3's (and for that matter Xbox360 and Wii) you can't compare their CPU's to that of a standard Athlon or Pentium. While you can judge relative performance levels and how much information they can process, you have to keep in mind that the CPU's used in gaming consoles are built specifically to play games. Athlons and Pentiums are built for general purpose use. IBM has been working on console specific chips for 6+ years (Gamecube, Wii, Xbox360, PS3). The same can be said for the graphics subsystem in gaming consoles compared to the video cards in computers today. Another huge advantage of consoles is that their system configurations are relatively static and that they do not need to program for the lowest common denominator. In a console you program for it to run at 720p or whatever with certain effects and you are ensured that it will run the same across the board. In a computer you have to try to please the hardcore high end folks while at the same time you have to ensure the games run at a decent clip for the 1ghz pentium folks with their ti4200's or 9500's. While I'm not a programmer I would imagine there are lots of coding that can be optimized when you know there is only one or two possible configurations in the hardware as opposed to litterally dozens of different configs.

 

[gplracer]

Which one is better? Impossible to say. Some people only have a 17" monitor but they have a 56" tv. What would you rather play games on? Now for me I already had a computer and a 24" monitor. I figured I would rather upgrade my pc with a new video card, ram, cpu, and processor instead of buying a ps3. I figure the cost would be about the same. Of course I like playing games online for free. I also like the controls of the pc better. Most racing simulations are made for pc's too. My son has an xbox but it collects dust in the corner. He would rather be on the pc as well. BTW we have a 65" television that we could play this stuff on.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: robertk2012

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: thequinox
I am having a hard time understanding how a console (mainly the PS3) is capable of playing games at full 1080 HD resolution while some high end PCs have trouble with it.

I am currently planning on buying a new gaming PC. I patiently waited (and am still waiting) for the AM2 to be released ever since I heard of it. Then I heard of Conrow and... well that's a different story. Anyway, I have read a couple posts on this forum about the PS3's cell processor and most people conclude that it would be very powerful if taken advantage of (which is apparently very hard to do).

Will the PS3 match/beat a high end PC, in which the processor, video card, etc cost $600 each? Is so, then how? and why is it so cheap?

Wait until the PS3 is out before claiming it's doing 1080 HD while PCs can't. BTW, 1080 is only about equivalent to 1600x1200, so it's not that impressive of a res. (1920x1080 is slightly hgiher, but most likely most ps3 games will run at 1280x720 anyway)
So far, the PS3 looks to have a graphics chip about equal to a 7900GT.
The cpu, around the equivalent of a 1Ghz Celeron maybe with a physics accelerator strapped on. (except for more general purpose than the physics accelerator, but you can't compare 1 to 1, cell is designed for a completely different purpose than a pc cpu and their strengths are entirely different)

An old article on this site showed that both PS3 and xbox360 would have been better off using an AMD or Intel CPU. Cell and xbox360 CPU is an in of order processor and is inherently slower. They are also much is harder to program and do not have current instruction sets such as SSE.

I think that article may have been on anandtech, or perhaps arstechnica. The one on anandtech was pulled.
Anyhow, for the things that you'd use SSE for, I bet the xbox 360 and Cell cpus would beast a PC. However, 99.5% of game code in current games isn't SSE.

If the 3 core power pc chip the xbox 360 has is anything like a G5 then you are talking about a pretty powerful chip there.

The G5 is generally weaker than a Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 (except in very specific tasks, generally ones not related to gaming), each core of the x360 cpu is notably weaker than a g5, except in those tasks a g5 did comparatively well in which weren't gaming related.

So anyhow, when PS3 comes out, it will have a gpu that is mid range to upper mid range, a cpu that probably costs as much to produce as the top end pc cpus (though those $1000 fx and extreme edition chips cost nowhere near that much, considering a $300 cpu overclocked can usually match them), a paltry amount of memory (512MB), a very small harddrive, and very limited input/output ports. The $600 PS3 is probably the equivalent of a $700 or $800 PC. Oh wait, forgot the blue-ray drive, so yeah, that would bring it up to about a $1000 PC. Of course, then Sony will charge you an arm and a leg for any upgrades in functionality, like extra controllers, larger harddrives, memory ports, wifi internet. (though the premium version has the last two)

#1 the cpu isnt the equivilent of a 1 ghz celeron.
#2 Im not sure where you got your information about the G5. The G5 is more powerful than any p4 and is clock for clock as fast as an amd 64 on average. You cant compare gaming performance do to a different platform and video cards and the fact that most games on macs werent designed to ever be played on a mac.

#1 I meant each core, and I'm referring to a Pentium 3 based Celeron, not a P4 based Celeron. Also, referring to typical PC code, if other tasks can be found for the cpu, such as audio encoding/decoding or image processing (which appears to be what most devs are doing, if they use the other cores at all), then the performance will be much higher.
#2 G5 seems to lose most real world benchmarks, even disregarding the gaming ones. It doesn't do all that well in a lot of synthetic ones either, though how much of its lackluster performance is due to being a weaker cpu and how much is due to having a much much worse performing chipset is unknown. (Apple's chipsets have about 3x the latency of Intel's best, so that could be a reason for poor performance, with a more up to date chipset, the G5 may get the equivalent of like a 500mhz boost)

1080i ~~ 720p (in terms of quality, for the general consensus)

I think in general consensus, 1080i is better, though 720p is preferred for 60fps material. Progressive scan is virtually worthless for 30fps material.

btw, isn't 1080p going to be a pain in the @$$ for PCs? something like Vista+DRM+Vid Card that has HDMI + HDCP + LCD that supports HDMI + HDCP or some crap like that...

Only for copy protected movies.

I dont know where you get your information from.

#1 again a 1 ghz celeron are you stupid?
#2 Please show me these real world benchmarks?
#3 720 is much better than 1080i in many peoples opinion including mine.
#4 progressive scan is definately not worthless. It makes more of a difference with 30 fps matterial. Have you ever actually watched a movie with progressive scan on a HD tv and compared it without? I bet you dont even own an hdtv.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: ST
there's such nonsense on this thread, it's disturbing.

1. 1080i is not equivalent to 720p. since it is 1080 per every other frame, its more equivalent to a 540p setup. 1080p is a huge deal as the increase from present day DVD format of 480i is phenomenal. If you have ever seen a native 1080i broadcast at its full 1:! pixel resolution, it equivalent from the jump from EGA to SVGA.

2. going from 1280x1024 (1310720 pixels) to 1920x1080 (2073600) is a significant difference in pixel count (58% increase). This necesitates a lot more video processing power. Most computer video cards today choke hard on resolutions of 1600x1200 or more. To run 1920x1080 res comfortable, you'll need a 7900GT / 1800XT class (or better if you want all the goodies like AA/AF/HDR on).

3. The amount of present TV sets that support native 1:1 pixel mapped 1080p support is almost nil, and most are usually in excess of $2500 easily. Most present "HDTV" have a native res of 1376x768 or so, and scale down 1080i /psignals accordingly. This is one of the reasons the XBOX360 is limited to 720p output.

As for the PS3 vs. PC debate, I'm reserving judgment until I get actual PS3 reviews.....

1080i is equal to 540p in bandwidth, not resolution. If you're viewing content at 30fps, you're throwing away the advantage of 720p anyway, just leaving 1080 lines against 720 lines. You can also think of 1080i as 1080p at 30fps if you want...

I dont know where you get your information from.

#1 again a 1 ghz celeron are you stupid?
#2 Please show me these real world benchmarks?
#3 720 is much better than 1080i in many peoples opinion including mine.
#4 progressive scan is definately not worthless. It makes more of a difference with 30 fps matterial. Have you ever actually watched a movie with progressive scan on a HD tv and compared it without? I bet you dont even own an hdtv.

I'm making the 1ghz celeron based off of early developer comments that the x360 cpu was giving slightly inferior performance to the Celeron in the original Xbox. A jump up to a 1ghz celeron is actually a rather large increase in performance from that, and possibly more than can be expected from getting more familiar with an architecture. I'm also assuming they weren't doing multithreading yet, which is why I started per core. If you wanna throw hyperthreading into the mix, maybe they're getting about the performance of a 1.5ghz celeron by now (roughly a 1.2ghz pentium m) per core. Most xbox 360 games still have framerate problems, and even id software is only using the additional cores for sound and renderer optimizations, meaning that they're getting no where near the full performance. The X360 cpu is about the size of a modern cpu, but its power is split among 3 cores, so 1 core won't be performing near the performance of a single 3.2ghz pentium 4, plus multithreading is hard and at best tends to only give 50% performance increases. If you wanna put the celeron comment in terms of a pentium 4, then we're talking about a 2ghz to 2.4ghz pentium 4 per core (if we're talking about modern tasks, there are things the celeron would compare much worse for but they're not so important nowadays or handled by the gpu, though they're generally the kind of tasks that the x360 cpu should fair better than that 2-2.4ghz pentium 4 estimates, if they mattered), which is not bad for a console.

720p is better for games I'd say, but I also agree 60 fps is better. Almost all films are at 30fps though, and 1080i is clearly superior there, and for games that are 30fps, 1080i will be superior there too. The only advantage 720p has over 1080i is the higher framerate without interlacing artifacts, if the source material doesn't take advantage of that then 1080i is clearly superior.

Lol, you're funny. You do realize that DVDs are interlaced, and then deinterlaced by either the DVD player or the TV? It doesn't really matter which, just which one is superior. Most TVs ship with very crappy deinterlacers, but you can use an external deinterlacer and get much better results than the DVD player is giving you. Native progressive scan material only matters significantly at 60fps. Just compare some console games in interlaced and pscan, the 30fps games will have a minor (though still existant) difference between progressive scan and interlaced (though for many games, for whatever reason, the progressive option actually looks worse), while 60fps games will look significantly better with progressive scan, a clear night and day difference that could even make those accustomed to progressive scan sick from viewing the 60fps interlaced material due to the severe interlacing artifacts.

 

[robertk2012]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: ST
there's such nonsense on this thread, it's disturbing.

1. 1080i is not equivalent to 720p. since it is 1080 per every other frame, its more equivalent to a 540p setup. 1080p is a huge deal as the increase from present day DVD format of 480i is phenomenal. If you have ever seen a native 1080i broadcast at its full 1:! pixel resolution, it equivalent from the jump from EGA to SVGA.

2. going from 1280x1024 (1310720 pixels) to 1920x1080 (2073600) is a significant difference in pixel count (58% increase). This necesitates a lot more video processing power. Most computer video cards today choke hard on resolutions of 1600x1200 or more. To run 1920x1080 res comfortable, you'll need a 7900GT / 1800XT class (or better if you want all the goodies like AA/AF/HDR on).

3. The amount of present TV sets that support native 1:1 pixel mapped 1080p support is almost nil, and most are usually in excess of $2500 easily. Most present "HDTV" have a native res of 1376x768 or so, and scale down 1080i /psignals accordingly. This is one of the reasons the XBOX360 is limited to 720p output.

As for the PS3 vs. PC debate, I'm reserving judgment until I get actual PS3 reviews.....

1080i is equal to 540p in bandwidth, not resolution. If you're viewing content at 30fps, you're throwing away the advantage of 720p anyway, just leaving 1080 lines against 720 lines. You can also think of 1080i as 1080p at 30fps if you want...

I dont know where you get your information from.

#1 again a 1 ghz celeron are you stupid?
#2 Please show me these real world benchmarks?
#3 720 is much better than 1080i in many peoples opinion including mine.
#4 progressive scan is definately not worthless. It makes more of a difference with 30 fps matterial. Have you ever actually watched a movie with progressive scan on a HD tv and compared it without? I bet you dont even own an hdtv.

I'm making the 1ghz celeron based off of early developer comments that the x360 cpu was giving slightly inferior performance to the Celeron in the original Xbox. A jump up to a 1ghz celeron is actually a rather large increase in performance from that, and possibly more than can be expected from getting more familiar with an architecture. I'm also assuming they weren't doing multithreading yet, which is why I started per core. If you wanna throw hyperthreading into the mix, maybe they're getting about the performance of a 1.5ghz celeron by now (roughly a 1.2ghz pentium m) per core. Most xbox 360 games still have framerate problems, and even id software is only using the additional cores for sound and renderer optimizations, meaning that they're getting no where near the full performance. The X360 cpu is about the size of a modern cpu, but its power is split among 3 cores, so 1 core won't be performing near the performance of a single 3.2ghz pentium 4, plus multithreading is hard and at best tends to only give 50% performance increases. If you wanna put the celeron comment in terms of a pentium 4, then we're talking about a 2ghz to 2.4ghz pentium 4 per core (if we're talking about modern tasks, there are things the celeron would compare much worse for but they're not so important nowadays or handled by the gpu, though they're generally the kind of tasks that the x360 cpu should fair better than that 2-2.4ghz pentium 4 estimates, if they mattered), which is not bad for a console.

720p is better for games I'd say, but I also agree 60 fps is better. Almost all films are at 30fps though, and 1080i is clearly superior there, and for games that are 30fps, 1080i will be superior there too. The only advantage 720p has over 1080i is the higher framerate without interlacing artifacts, if the source material doesn't take advantage of that then 1080i is clearly superior.

Lol, you're funny. You do realize that DVDs are interlaced, and then deinterlaced by either the DVD player or the TV? It doesn't really matter which, just which one is superior. Most TVs ship with very crappy deinterlacers, but you can use an external deinterlacer and get much better results than the DVD player is giving you. Native progressive scan material only matters significantly at 60fps. Just compare some console games in interlaced and pscan, the 30fps games will have a minor (though still existant) difference between progressive scan and interlaced (though for many games, for whatever reason, the progressive option actually looks worse), while 60fps games will look significantly better with progressive scan, a clear night and day difference that could even make those accustomed to progressive scan sick from viewing the 60fps interlaced material due to the severe interlacing artifacts.

Im not wasting anymore time with this. Your answers keep getting longer and longer and still say the same thing.

 

[Tom]

My little Compaq computer has cost me a total of about $400.(hot deals, so not typical, but doable) The relevant stats for speed..

Athlon64 3500+
1.5gig ddr ram dual channel
EVGA 7900GT 256mb

This is probably typical of what a lot of current pc gamers have for a system, how does it compare to the PS3 as far as gaming potential ?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Tom
My little Compaq computer has cost me a total of about $400.(hot deals, so not typical, but doable) The relevant stats for speed..

Athlon64 3500+
1.5gig ddr ram dual channel
EVGA 7900GT 256mb

This is probably typical of what a lot of current pc gamers have for a system, how does it compare to the PS3 as far as gaming potential ?

That's probably higher end than most pc gamers.
Graphics are about equivalent to the PS3, but you'll probably need a dual core cpu or a physics processor (assuming the physics processor actually turns out to be worthwhile) to keep up with cell.