Jumplion said:
Finnboghi said:
I'd say that's amazing, except the laptop I'm using right now has comparable throughput to the PS3.
It's unfortunate that Sony made the PS3 seem so immensely powerful, then put such crappy processors in.
Honestly, it's fully possible for them to max out the PS3.
Sony was planning on having the PS3 be the most powerful device for a long time, but what they didn't take into account is the acceleration of technology.
When it was first made, the PS3 was among the fastest machines around.
Now for a few thousand dollars, you can get computers several times (i.e. 4x, not 1.5x) more powerful than the PS3, and I think that's going to really hurt both the PS3 and 360.
Gaming is only going to move more towards computers during this generation.
The Wii is only safe because it's so different.
By the time FFXIII is released, it will be so far behind even moderate computers that it will only have value to the fanboys of the series.
That would be great if we were
ever talking about PCs and if we were actually giving a shit about processors right now.
Seriously, I am so sick of people going "ho ho ho! Consoles will be inferior to PCs anyway! Ho ho ho!" when we never even talk about crap like that. Consoles and PCs are two
entirely different markets targeted at two completely different people, so please shut up with this whole "Consoles are inferior!" crap. Isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, not everyone wants to go through the time, commitment, and money just to make a standard PC? Not everyone wants to research every little part of a PC and assemble it, not everyone is a "PC Mastah" like you.
I said this before, "It doesn't matter if consoles will be 'inferior' to PCs in 5 years because they're already 'inferior' hardware-wise in 5
months. So what's the damn point in trying to keep up if they're meant for logetivity?"
Does it matter if you can get a more powerful PC? Who gives a damn about
power, it's about the
games you can get for it. Threads like these are just hype threads, that's it. They don't say anything about the hardware itself, do you have any idea how many times developers have said "We're pushing them as hard as we can captain!"? The answer; a bunch of friggin' times. And so what if they use up 100% of the CPU or something? As someone said earlier, 100% usage
does not mean 100%
efficiency. You may be able to push the car up to a maximum speed of 200mph but that does not mean that it's at maximum efficiency. New engines, new coding techniques, new data, blah blah blah, potential is not marked exclusively by the hardware's standard capabilities, it's what you can do to push it further.
So please, shut up with your PC fanboyism/elitism/istigasm/whatever and don't bother posting in these types of threads if you're just going to go around spouting PC stuff all over the place. We get it, PCs are more advance than console, and to that I say
so freakin' what?
Wow.
I think someone needs to turn down the console fanboyism just a tad.
I enjoy both console and PC games, and I enjoy them for different reasons.
However, simply because you attacked with such ferocity, I feel the need to poke a hole in every argument you have, so, here goes:
Never talking about PCs? This is a forum about gaming, isn't it? And PCs are a part of gaming, no? Also, why is it that 40% of the posts I can see right now (Latest comments, most popular, etc.) are for PC-only games?
Gaming consoles were created way back when computers couldn't play games, but the acceleration in computer technology has outpaced that of consoles, however consoles have been able to keep up with visuals by using 'different' ways of rendering (not better, not worse, just different). This is because a console's renderer can be more static, because it's somewhat predictable what's going to happen. The fact that consoles can keep up is quite simply remarkable, and a wonderful feat. However, the simple fact remains, consoles just don't have the processing power, and aren't dynamic enough to be the future. They are great in their own respect, but as we drift closer to not needing a dedicated machine exclusively for gaming, I feel that consoles will slowly die out.
As for building or purchasing a computer, it doesn't take much time or expertise, and it's not like people don't buy them for other purposes, such as professional applications like digital graphics, audio and video editing, etc., all of which generally require 'gaming' quality PCs.
The issue with the PS3 isn't that it is obsolete in 5 years; the issue is that Sony wants the PS3 to be on the market for 15. At the current rate of development, the iPhone GSXPZ will be playing games similar to a PS3 by the time it's life is at an end.
As for games; I generally prefer PC games, simply because I have an obsession with accurate physics which borders on the fetishistic, and to date I've seen only two games which satisfy that on consoles, both of which have been ported to PC. In short, there are great games which are only available on consoles, but there are just as many for PCs.
As for consumption vs. efficiency: modern computation has drawn away from this; nearly all APIs are designed to be as efficient as possible, code is written in an intelligent and logical manner, and even the processors and compilers themselves are so advanced that they optimize code on-the-fly (trust me, when you write in assembly, you can see just how well this works). Coupled with the power of modern processors, even 100% consumption could be 98% efficiency, due simply to the abundance of available cycles for computation, the small number of unnecessary and redundant cycles would amount to little more than nano-seconds.
And finally, before you accuse me of "[going] around spouting PC stuff all over the place", might want to check my posts; this is the first time I've ever posted anything about PC gaming.
[ol]
[li]Also,[/li]
[li]
I[/li]
[li][ul]
[li]
Can[/li]
[li]
Use[/li]
[/ul][/li]
[li]
Tags[/li]
[li]
Too[/li]
[/ol]
