Playstation 3

September 1, 2005 1:39 AM

PlayStation 3 GPU Less Powerful than PC graphics card.
posted by bobbyelliott (32 comments total)

Seems a tad...I don't know... biased?
posted by Be'lal at 1:41 AM on September 1, 2005

worst. post. ever.
posted by nmiell at 1:43 AM on September 1, 2005

Errr... a single link post to a fanboy Xbox site? This is the best of the web how?
posted by nathan_teske at 1:44 AM on September 1, 2005

It's sort of interesting that bobbyelliott thought this would make a good metafilter post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:52 AM on September 1, 2005

NOW I HATE THE INTERNET
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:03 AM on September 1, 2005

Wow, I almost never agree with the whiners about FPPs, but this has got to be the absolute worst post ever. Worse than self-links, speculative Iraqi nonsense, etc.

At the end of the three paragraphs of absolutely gripping text that is the sole composition of the post, there is a link to an article that retracts all of the nonsense that was linked to.
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 2:04 AM on September 1, 2005

.|.
posted by secret about box at 2:06 AM on September 1, 2005

Hay, guyz!! The next-generation begins with the Xbox 360. Don’t you forget!

And the retraction.
posted by Bugbread at 2:09 AM on September 1, 2005

.|.
posted by Ryvar at 2:15 AM on September 1, 2005

This is bad.
posted by damnthesehumanhands at 2:38 AM on September 1, 2005

PC graphics have always smoked consoles. next.
posted by jimjam at 2:49 AM on September 1, 2005

./.

[i just gave this link the slashdot cock]
posted by furtive at 3:30 AM on September 1, 2005

Bag of shite.
posted by chrid at 4:07 AM on September 1, 2005

Ok, it's a bad post, all of you whiners move along, nothing to see here...

Come on, though, I've seen worse. Anyway, it says that it's about the same as the most high end PC graphics card (at least, I think that's what they're saying). How many people actually have one of those cards, though? And how many PC software programmers actually write games that use all of that power? Not many. I have a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200, which is pretty middle-of-the-road, and I get quite good performance from it. Doom 3, that's a different story...but Half Life 2 ran like a dream.

I guess my point is that the vast majority of PC gamers don't use the high-end hardware, and the PS3 will be just as revolutionary as we're expecting. And, yes, the XBOX 360 as well.
posted by zardoz at 4:12 AM on September 1, 2005

The cost of buying a pc that can run the SLI mode aint cheap though, the motherboard, 2 gfx cards and ram shove pc costs up to around a grand here - the technology of the ps3 might be slightly out dated, but it will be a while before the same pc technology will be as cheap. And considering the ps3 is a dedicated gaming machine rather than a porn surfing tool that can play games - I'm not too worried by it.

Mind you, I won't be buying either a ps3 or xbox360 cos they don't have cs:source on them...

(arguing about best of web seems pointless - 99% of posts here are never "the best of the web" - if we're honest, that hurra torpedo "total eclipse of the heart" video is the absolute *best* of the web and that was already posted)
posted by 13twelve at 4:13 AM on September 1, 2005

Attach the rock of shame!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:32 AM on September 1, 2005

You know why I'm buying a next-gen console?

You still can't play Burnout on a PC.
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:34 AM on September 1, 2005

Turn around, bright-eyes.

/looks around for an appliance to destroy
posted by FYKshun at 6:09 AM on September 1, 2005

Who cares? Consoles are designed to be lean mean gaming machines, not something that is bleeding edge. They have to pick hardware early so they can get a useable API to the gamemakers. And also, ill bet you that even if it is 'slower', its optimized for games only, and will run better then a pc that needs to run windows in the background.
posted by Mach5 at 6:22 AM on September 1, 2005

this post sucks.

also the retraction bears re-linking.
posted by glenwood at 6:39 AM on September 1, 2005

[This is NOT good.]
posted by gen at 7:15 AM on September 1, 2005

And check out the chart!!! Xbox rips along at 80 shadings/s vs Playstation's pathetically paltry 74.8 shadings/s. Making the XBOX 7% faster! Oooh, served! Take that, PS3!
posted by Deathalicious at 7:37 AM on September 1, 2005

13twelve: If we're honest, that hurra torpedo "total eclipse of the heart" video is the absolute *best* of the web

I totally agree.
posted by I Foody at 7:39 AM on September 1, 2005

Hmm... I'm guessing if you want to complain to bobbyelliot, you can always reach him at [e-mail]. :-p
posted by Deathalicious at 7:39 AM on September 1, 2005

PC Graphics cards, if I am not mistooked, are designed to output 1600x1200 at +30fps.

Anything for a standard tv only needs to be 600x400 or so and 27fps.

So, any base PC graphics card should smoke anything designed to be put into a TV.

I guess for HDTV that would differ, but I don't know the specs on that offhand...
posted by MildlyDisturbed at 7:44 AM on September 1, 2005

wow. I've read more than I should on this subject, but that this console is pushing a video card that doesn't cost as much as the console alone (7800GTX, the card they compare it to costs $450-$500) can't possibly be news.

..|.. seems deserved.
posted by Busithoth at 7:45 AM on September 1, 2005

Hey, waitaminute...this post isn't any good! howza?! Whatza?!
posted by Pecinpah at 7:49 AM on September 1, 2005

Mildlydisturbed, the new consoles will support at least 720p (1280x720) at 30Hz, possibly 1080i (1920x540 interlaced at 60Hz, effectively 1920x1080 at 30Hz), and the PS3 will supposedly support 1080p (1920x1080) at 30Hz. Standard-def NTSC, which what current consoles usually put out, is either 640x480 or 720x480 at 29.97Hz.
posted by zsazsa at 8:01 AM on September 1, 2005

but now theres only love in the dark
posted by 13twelve at 8:02 AM on September 1, 2005

Even if the PS3 and Xbox360 are faster than PCs upon release, they'll soon be left behind within 6-9 months. The games will reach a ceiling in performance and graphical whiz-bangery, while the PC will continue to innovate and allow developers room to improve. We've seen it happen with each 'next-gen' console release throughout videogame history.

Plus, Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo, if you want to include them) still don't understand the importance of an integrated hard drive and what it means for game development. Example: Bioware, developers of award winning console and PC games for years now, releases Jade Empire. Load times are excrutiatingly long. The Xbox hard drive is only utilized for save games...why don't the developers realize reading from drive is faster than reading from disc?

Oh, and wake me up when consoles can play large-scale real time strategy games like Rome: Total War.
posted by NationalKato at 8:05 AM on September 1, 2005

I'm still not gonna buy a damned XBox even if some fanboy thinks the PS3 is crap. That's fine.

I'd say nice try on the post but, as others have noted, a single link to an obviously biased site does not a good FPP make.

I do want a hard drive in my console though, so my games could spool up faster and play faster.
posted by fenriq at 8:16 AM on September 1, 2005

The INQ’s heroic reporters went down the pub after work and by the time they stumbled home to their beds and went to sleep, the whole God forsaken internet had imploded.
posted by WolfDaddy at 8:56 AM on September 1, 2005