Digital Storm Infographic Pits PC Gaming Versus Consoles

44

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

LatiosXT

I like how the comparison table caters to the ill-informed buyer who thinks clock speed between parts is an apples to apples comparison.

avatar

Rift2

I want to try Halo 4 out I never tried Halo before but.....I don't want to fork out 150.00 for x-box plus Live.

I'm a Happy Ps3 owner though with Demon Souls and Dark souls.

avatar

Electrik

I recently built a kick ass 6-core SB-E machine, but I still use an X-box to game with. I use my PC mainly for photography/video editing, and the X-box does a pretty decent job on first-person shooters.

I used to use the PS3 until it turned into a brick during a simple firmware upgrade, a common problem with the Sony machines. Too bad, I loved the ability to play Blu-ray movies with it.

So, I still reserve the right to read MPC and use a console for gaming! A "maximum" PC does not necessarily mean a gaming rig.

avatar

spokenwordd

LOL FPS with a console controller...... No thanks

avatar

Nimrod

LMFAO at consoles are ok for FPS!

avatar

buttersoft

>the X-box does a pretty decent job on first-person shooters.

Only if you don't really like first-person shooters, though.

avatar

DR_JDUBZ

Once you go to a tri monitor setup there aint no going back!!!

avatar

jedisamurai

What do I game on the most? My 360. What system would I want if I could only have one? Probably my PS2. Which is my favorite? Toss-up between my Saturn and my Dreamcast. That said, there ARE games you can only run on PC that I'm very fond of, and PC games are definitely cheaper than console games (thanks to Steam and Humble Bundles, Freeware, etc), but PC gaming is darn expensive for the hardware, especially if you use it for what most people do (FPS).

I haven't owned a PC that ran modern games better than my consoles since the 90's (golden age of PC gaming). Since then the console version has always been better when I compare my PC to my best console on a purely performance level (thanks to console hardware optimizations and clever programing vs. lousy PC ports and lazy programming in most Triple-A PC-only games).

avatar

Nimrod

DMC4......among others. . .

Not to mention the entire fact that most console games dont actually run at 1080 resolution and that most of them cant even hit 60 FPS. So whats your point really?

avatar

Hirantha

this person's words are coming out of you know what.. o_O

avatar

Device Unknown

I don't get it. Tell us again WHY you are reading MAXIMUM PC? It's not MAXIMUM CONSOLE. You even stated you do not even own a PC capable of modern games so what makes you qualified to make any opinions on the quality of games on console vs. PC?

avatar

Paladin25

Well I am saying f~bleep~ ALL consoles!

avatar

Slugbait

The Kindle doesn't make money, either. That's why Target and Walmart stopped selling it.

Content makes money, and that's the primary goal for all consoles. The Xbox goes beyond gaming, and that other content also makes money. Microsoft is happy to take the initial hit on the console sale, because the money flows in after the initial sale.

avatar

Slugbait

The Kindle doesn't make money, either. That's why Target and Walmart stopped selling it.

Content makes money, and that's the primary goal for all consoles. The Xbox goes beyond gaming, and that other content also makes money. Microsoft is happy to take the initial hit on the console sale, because the money flows in after the initial sale.

avatar

jgottberg

For gaming, I'm taking my PS3 all day long. Is it the BEST experience graphically or otherwise? Probably not. BUT, I don't have to update vid cards, drivers, audio codecs, AV software, etc... I just turn on the machine, pop the game in and play. Which is all I want to do anyway.

I have a PC for all the cool chores like ripping bluray movies, streaming content to my PS3 etc... I just don't have to go through all the BS to play a game. I barely have time to play a game anyways.

avatar

Scatter

While I'm a die hard PC gamer I think that it's just a little disingenuous to make these comparisons at the tail end of a console life-cycle. Where were the Xbox360 to PC comparisons when the 360 first came out? Will Digital Storm have another comparison like this as soon as the Xbox 720 is released?

avatar

Paul_Lilly

Therein lies the rub with consoles -- they're stuck with the same hardware, while PCs are not. The next Xbox (Durango, or Xbox 720) isn't likely to be available for another year, towards the end of 2013. Who knows when the PS4 will come out ,and while the Wii U is about to drop, it's no PC killer. DS's timing of this comparison underscores that point.

avatar

jgottberg

My only beef is that a console costs say, $300. A low-end gaming PC would cost about $700, give or take. My initial investment of $300 can be amortized over a 6 or 7 year lifecycle. The newest games still play on it without modification or upgrading while a 6 or 7 year old PC without said upgrades would never play a modern title.

Obviously, I wouldn't be on MaximumPC if I didn't have love for the PC but as far as gaming is concerned, a console just makes more sense to me. A console doesn't need the micromanagement a PC does... AV updates, near constant OS patches, updated drivers, etc... I can just pop in a game and go. Therein lies the attraction for me :)

avatar

mistersabor

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1

Although PC's are better(imo), they do not beat console to the ground because of the overhead of DirectX. That is the price you have to pay to get a game to run on a variety of different systems. Being able to program a game for direct access to the hardware is great advantage.

avatar

wolfing

that's not a fair comparison. Current generation of consoles are like what, 6-7 years old?
I prefer gaming in the PC over the console, but not because of the PC experience being better, for that I actually prefer playing in the comfort of my bed over the computer's chair. No, it's because the type of games I can play in the PC are not available for consoles. Console games are in the majority either:
- Shooters
- 3rd person action (RPG or pure action)
- Sports

So, strategy games are missing, turn based or slower paced RPGs are missing (specially those without spiky haired 15 year old 'chosen ones'), simulation games are rare, MMOs are lacking, etc.

avatar

kixofmyg0t

Well these people definitely doesn't know the PS3 all that well because the specs listed are indeed wrong.

*DISCLAIMER*
Yeah I know PC's have better hardware and PC games are prettier.

The PS3 doesn't have 512MB of GDDR3, nor is the HDD only 250GB. It has 256MB of XDR running at 3.2Ghz and another 256MB of GDDR3 running at 650Mhz. Cell and RSX both have 256MB of RAM to play with(well, Cell's SPU's have their local store but it's not really relevant from a bullet point perspective)the difference is Cell has a VERY slow read speed from GDDR. Cell can only read from GDDR at 16MB(yes that's MEGAbytes) per second. It's WAY faster to just have RSX pull from XDR. So special attention needs to be taken when optimizing your code when working on PS3. So if you try to code like you would on a 360 or PC you're doing it wrong. It's totally possible to render everything in Cell and just use RSX as a frame buffer, Uncharted 2 and 3 are a perfect example. Uncharted 1 used RSX in a traditional sense to render everything(mostly), but in 2 they went and blazed a new path and rendered everything on Cell. The end result is Uncharted as a series is a fine looking game(for a console) that highlights there's more than one way to render a cat.

The PS3's HDD is upgradable. My PS3 came with a 60GB drive, and now has a 500GB WD Scorpio Blue. So how they came up with the PS3 as only having a 250GB HDD is just silly and short sighted.

With all that being said I still enjoy playing my PS3 more so than PC. Sure the graphics aren't as "gee golly that is PRETTY!" but I have certain games that aren't on PC that I enjoy. Plus the only game I'm interested at the moment on PC is Torchlight 2.

avatar

Peanut Fox

I think the HDD comparison was the best you could buy off the shelf PS3. Even their setup lists 4TB as the highest when you can dump as much storage space into as PC as you can readily afford. Granted with the release of the new PS3 slim their information on HDD space is dated.

avatar

devin3627

hey guys, what about future consoles and blu-ray? all pc gamers will need dual layer blu-ray drives for 50gb games.

avatar

Scatter

The future of PC gaming is digital distribution.

avatar

Peanut Fox

They'll probably just ship them on multiple DVDs like they've been doing.

I want to know if the next Xbox will use blu ray or a proprietary disc system.

avatar

Ninjawithagun

Yup! Both gaming consoles have been out for over five years. Needless to say, the release of the upcoming next-gen gaming consoles is a welcome sight indeed. The most exciting aspect to future gaming consoles is not only will they be more powerful, but they may also come with the capability to upgrade the graphics card in them using Intel's thunderbolt technology. No word yet for sure if either Sony or Microsoft will incorporate this kind of technology into their next-gen gaming consoles. Only time will tell. Both next gen consoles (Sony PS4 and XBOX 8...or 720?) should be out by 2014. I can't wait! In the meantime, my beastly gaming PC with 3-way SLI'd EVGA GTX680 FTW+ cards will serve it's duties well with Crysis 3, MW Black Ops 2, and whatever other games that are released in the next 18 months ;)

avatar

Sovereign

Consoles: Less expensive hardware, games SHOULD "just work" (not always...)

PC: Hardware can cost a bundle. Games can be a pain (less so than they used to be). Has other functions. Though, with Netflix integration, for the Average Home User, this may not matter.

I'd still take the PC--it can grow with games, rather than becoming the single limiting factor. I don't think it's untrue that consoles hold games back, since eventually PCs far outstrip consoles of the current generation (it's a rubber-band cycle and we're at the tail end).

avatar

praetor_alpha

While the console itself is cheaper, people tend to forget the cost of the TV that it is connected to.

avatar

Refuge88

Or the monitor(s) your computer is putting out to?

computer peripherals / Console Crontrollers

I'm not saying I side on consoles, far from it. Just that the discussion of peripherals on them is rather moot. You can spend equally on both in 90% of all cases. That is unless your pimping your rig to be a command center, which btw I'm ALLL FOR BABY!

avatar

Sty

Consoles only have 512mb of RAM?

avatar

chronium

Technically the PS3 only has 256mb of ram. The other 256mb is reserved for the video card and other graphical processes.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Yeah. 360 is almost 7 years old. XP with 2GB of RAM was plenty in that day. Believe it or not the 360 almost launched with just 256MB until Epic produced a demo of what games could do with the extra memory.

avatar

praetor_alpha

I remember listening to a podcast from Bethesda about this. They had a party when MS said the 360 would have 512 megs.

avatar

Sty

Damn, time sure goes by quick. I'm not really understanding their whole, "current gen consoles still have a lot of power left" statements; clearly the consoles are freaken old.

avatar

Peanut Fox

They're old, but consoles have a different development arch than PCs. PCs scale linearly as time goes on and the hardware improves.

Consoles damn near reset to zero every time a new one is released. Almost nothing about programming for the PS2 will help you with the PS3. Same for the Xbox and Xbox360 (yes there is some carryover). It's the reason why if you compare early console games from 2006 to ones of 2012 they look and play a LOT better.

avatar

Andrew.Hodge

At least it's not as bad as the curiosity rover.

From extremetech: " At the heart of Curiosity there is, of course, a computer. In this case the Mars rover is powered by a RAD750, a single-board computer (motherboard, RAM, ROM, and CPU) produced by BAE. The RAD750 has been on the market for more than 10 years, and it’s currently one of the most popular on-board computers for spacecraft. In Curiosity’s case, the CPU is a PowerPC 750 (PowerPC G3 in Mac nomenclature) clocked at around 200MHz — which might seem slow, but it’s still hundreds of times faster than, say, the Apollo Guidance Computer used in the first Moon landings. Also on the motherboard are 256MB of DRAM, and 2GB of flash storage — which will be used to store video and scientific data before transmission to Earth."

" On the software side of things, NASA again stuck to tried-and-tested solutions, opting for the 27-year-old VxWorks operating system. "

Kinda makes consoles seem a little better now, huh?

avatar

Scatter

But how frames per second can it run Halo at?

avatar

Peanut Fox

Wow.

That puts things into perspective.

avatar

TheZomb

Not really. NASA doesn't have to deal with the same type of rising need for resources in their systems that consoles do. I'm sure that isn't the only computer on curiosity as well. When it comes to robotics and scientific computing lower level operating systems are much better than the higher level ones create today.

Also when cell phones have more RAM than these consoles its a little sad. They could easily have put more RAM in these consoles and maintained costs with the RAM market being what it is. That is the first bottle neck they will or have hit.

avatar

Andrew.Hodge

This is true.

avatar

Budman_NC

Curiosity does have a second radiation hardened computer on board identical to the primary as a back up. The true perspective here is what can be done with just a 200 MHz processor. I used to do programming using a 200 MHz Pentium processor to do digital I/O, data acquisition and test programs on DC motors for the company I worked for. It had plenty of power. Software now has so much fluff and crappy inefficient coding that a lot of CPU cycles goes to waste. Just look at Windows 8 now. It runs in less than a gig of memory and it runs faster. Modern computers have way more power than we need, the software is what boggs them down.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Right, but when you're Sony or Microsoft taking a hit on every unit you're selling you're going to want to cut costs where you can.

avatar

the_brink

They might complain about what they lose on each console, but what they make in licensing fees and accessories more then makes up for the lose on their consoles.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Imagine if you're Sony at launch. You're selling a box for 500-600 dollars and still taking a loss on each unit sold. you're trying to sell a product to the masses that even the people who may want it may not be able to afford it, and accessories for your platform won't do jack if no one is buying it. Believe me. They wanted to cut the fat any way they could. The same goes for Microsoft who was taking a much bigger gamble going up against Sony and Nintendo with a platform that had yet to prove itself as successful. The original Xbox never made any money.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.