This site obviously has no standards for quality of articles. I was very interested in this topic, but was appalled by the overall poor structure as well as lines such as "the PS3 has some ware around 256." The author "wse_jack" present only a good argument for paying attention in English class.

i totally agree with this man his veiws on pc ps3 & xbox 2 r perfect the pc will be ahead of the consoles in about a year, the consoles xbox 2 & ps3 will be out dated and over thrown by the pc . the pc is far superb to the consoles and with the new ati x1900 series is already at 775mhz but this has xfire tec which means u can have 1500mhz 3 times the power of the xbow & ps3 and with the amd duel core fx 60 its already ahead of both th pc does far more than jusy gaming if u wann disagree with my statment e mail me at crossley_sam@yahoo.co.uk

After all the PCs were the first and will be the first!

well....it isn't so bad at all...but there is too much text for a bit of interesting information.Maybe the Softpedia Editors will write a better article on this topic.i was very interested too...i read it ... and i didn't get any new info...that's why it was a little boring

pc rocks..nothing like it

Wow...worst article ever written (not so much the content but the way it was presented). What the hell was Softpedia News thinking??? At least they could've edited it, instead of making us realize that computer nerds don't make for good writers. My 5 year old nephew could have written a more coherent article than this...

I must agree with comments 1 and 3. There is absolutely no excuse to publish an article that is so poorly eidted.

I get the impression that the author may be of foregin origin so he/she may not have the best command of the English laguage. However, it is incumbent upon Softpedia to edit their content.

On the other hand , if the article was written by an English speaking person I have just one bit of adivice - quit playing games and take a remedial course in English.

I thought you were a comedy genius when you spelt edited "eidted", but the rest of the spelling suggests that you're just as bad when it comes to spelling and grammar....

i think we can class that as a typo not a spelling or grammar mistake you muppet! the original piece is a disgrace and you picked up on an honest mistake in someones reply not a lack of education like in the original article.

I honestly don't think that anyone whose rating this article poorly even bothered to read the entire thing, much less absorb a single word of it, what he is saying is true, quit nitpicking like assholes and respond to what he'se saying not how he'se saying it...

I like kids like you, "nonya." People who spend too much time looking for an arguement over the internet. Not only that, but the article was indeed poorly written, not so much the grammer, but the overall point it is trying to make. The article uses opinions, more or less, instead of straight fact (of which only appeared here and there within the article itself). The person who wrote this article was (and probably still is) a "pc gamer." He made more points to defend the pc than anything. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: how come on the average computer (average as in popularity, not so much performance or cost) a simple game such as guitar hero tends to crash? Consoles seem to have no trouble at all.

I had to register an account here JUST to respond to this article

WTH is he thinking? Ok, first off the cell is FAR more powerful than an athlon FX 55. My P4 3.4 with a 6800U (clocked at 450/1200) struggled keeping a SINGLE HD WMV at full screen under 70% CPU usage. The cell is doing 12 at one time without using the RSX? Comon. And you can't compare the cell to a PC processor anyway, totally different architectures. It's not like you can pop a cell processor on a desktop and start chugging away on windows. Its not a compatible instruction set.

And you won't see a PC video card that has 35gb/sec direct bandwidth to the CPU anytime soon and 3.2gz XDR (3 times faster than ddr2 550? There are benchmarks out there).

And the benchmarks on the 512 meg cards? At BEST they are only showing a 3% difference, but are 90% of the time EQUAL to the 256 meg cards. More ram doesn't make the card MAGICALLY produce pixels faster, just helps with cacheing. Even with Doom 3 at Ultra quality there is VERY little difference.

what a cl00bie.

This article, as mentioned by the various responses here, was very poorly done.

The RSX chip is said by nVidia to be more powerful than DUAL SLI GeForce 6800 Ultras. This is a contradiction to the author's 3-4x more powerful if i get SLI statement.

However, in response to wafflesids remarks, i have a few things to say.

The Cell chip is more multimedia oriented than normal desktop processors. For number crunching and physics type processing, the Cell chip does not compare favorably to desktop processors such as the FX 55. However, for multimedia applications such as decoding HD video, the Cell would do much better. It is like comparing a celeron to a pentium.

By the time the PS3 comes out, there will be a desktop graphics card more powerful than RSX. Words from nVidia themselves.

"And you won't see a PC video card that has 35gb/sec direct bandwidth to the CPU anytime soon"

Do your research!! Some 4 months after your post, GPU's with 48GB/sec capabilities became readily available.

I know it's 4 months after this post, but I was reading about them back in May - uBer n00b!!

the consoles will be out of date in 2 years so fuck u quimby person

actually yea i do its called the ati x1900 series it works at 775mhz compared to the shit nvidia 550mhz gpu ps3 has got and the new ati that better that the ps3 has xfire tech which means (i gotta tell u cos ur an amatur) u join 2 together to get around 1500mhz now you cant beat that the pc is already ahead mate so get you facts right

This is really a terrible article. I'll start off with the editing, or in this case, the lack of editing. One would expect at least a quick check for spelling errors, but that obviously didn't happen.

It also seems that the writer has a bias towards PC gaming, especially with the phrase, "is that you are frying your brain with mind numbing violence" (in relation to console games). This writer seems to ignore that there are so many mindlessly violent games on the PC as well. This statement about mindlessly violent games really has nothing to do with the rest of that paragraph, where he mentions Microsoft wiedling a heavy hand in the console market. He also mentions something about a "screwing on the PS2", but there are so many events in the gaming industry that it's difficult to know what he means by that.

I'd suggest that Softpedia bar this person from writing more articles, and that's just based on the fact that he's just a poor writer. It isn't too difficult to know the usage of "they're" and "there".

Terrible, terrible article. Softpedia is a sweet looking site but this story really drags down the quality of the service.

Isn't this just an attempt to get lots of clicks from Google News visitors?

Plus, what the freak has World/Entertainment news got to do with a software site?!

"Plus, what the freak has World/Entertainment news got to do with a software site?!"

You're missing the point.

Softpedia is much more than a software site. For example, there's a mobile section with information and articles about mobile devices (pdas, phones, etc).

Another section is Softpedia News which obviously does not limit itself to listing *only* software news. It's true, the main share consists of IT related articles, but the section is in fact more general (note that it's called Softpedia News, not Softpedia IT News).

Mobile devices, Phones etc are still under the umbrella of what a "tech" website should be reporting on. Same with business news.

There is NO reason why Entertainment and World news should be on here at all. Whitney Houston back to recording studio? Half-naked pictures of Saddam Hussein printed in THE SUN?

Give me a break. Looks like Google News spam to me.

Well as some of you have posted good points about the difference between a console and a pc....all of you have forgotten the most important....THE OPERATING SYSTEM, while windows gamers(and mac and linux for that matter) have a bulky nasty clunky OS chillin in the background while you are trying to play your games, consoles have limited if any sort of os in the background....xbox has i stripped down to all hell windows nt kernel, im sure the 360 wont be much different....as as for the ps2 and ps3, im not so much into the software development side, so i would assume sony would have something similar to the lines of a kernel or pre-os style programming running under the game....no matter what PC you have, you cant out perform a new console....and for one more big point.....as far as running your game at like 70 or 80 fps??? thats just a retarded benchmark, you cant compare a console to a computer game like that.....consoles ouput in pal or ntsc....both only run around 29-33 fps depending....so why would u need to up the frame rate? just to say you could? thats retarded.....no way can a pc with windows running in the background out perform a stripped down console....two tottally different animals....but the console for gaming performance will win

Excellent point escheat! I'm new to softpedia so I'm not going to slam the author for editing, spelling, or grammatical errors. As I'm not familiar with the standard writings here. Although I will say that I was hoping for a more indepth and factually based discussion about the pros and cons of consoles over PCs. The author is clearly baised towards PCs and many of his arguments are under the assumption that we should just believe him. But as escheat explained I don't think he took an objective view of everything that comes into play.

The OS is a huge factor that was never even considered. Not only is OS overhead something that should be discussed, but god forbid the OS has been running for over a year, how about the average machine which might have some spyware, malware, tracking software, MSNmsgr, realscheduler, qttasks. I mean dilligent users can stay on top of this, but I'm a network admin and this stuff sits on my machine from time to time before I have a chance to clean it out. Programs like these will effect performance of a machine, not to mention startup times, load times, and simple ease of use, all of which I would think would favor the consoles.

Another issue which I think you overlooked due to it's advantage towards the consoles is display size. On your average setup PCs aren't hooked up to anything larger than 21" while consoles are almost always above that mark. Now I realize that you can hook a PC up to your 60" LCD RPTV but it's not commonly done that way. Most Home Theater nuts like myself take time to make the HT setup as stunning as the picture and sound it produces. A bulky PC sitting next to it is not what I would consider appealing. Just more food for discussion.

Mike

uh i know it's late to reply to this commment, but what's wrong with have better FPS? it does improve gameplay, and also, a pc multitasks? whereas a console is 100% dedicated to gaming/media, (one would think it's called GAMING system for a reason, and PERSONAL COMPUTER for a reason.)

wow...5 comments for such an article...this user really got our attention.well...i posted comment #2 just to 'cool down the things'(don't come to me with english courses advices).so,in my opinion..this article would be erased from a respected forum,and when i read it..i forgot that i browse softpedia.com ..shame on them to have this news on their main page
P.S.:at this moment..this article has 16,774 reads.B*** S***T
it's late now..so i won't check what i wrote...sorry for any errors

ye 5...there are 10 now...and 22,086 reads

Still, the sites design is beautiful. I forgive them for this ;)

"My PC is very close to the specs of the PS3"
800 MHz CPU can be faster than a 4000 MHz CPU, it's the architecture and how it's used that matters, Cell is much better than current high-end desktop CPUs for games and physics processing. The consoles aren't very good for complex and demanding games, also they're not very appropriate for FPS and RTS, most recently the lead designer on Silent Hunter III said that if they port the game to the consoles it won't be a submarine sim but an arcade submarine sim, people can have fun and move on to the next game; many PC gamers like to play on the PC because you can lose yourself in the game, you can become a part of it. The next gen consoles aren't better for games (no keyboard and mouse support), they're just technically better now and arcade oriented, in the future 512 MB (equates 1 GB for the PC now) won't be enough and complex games will have to be limited, many of the console games won't be truly advanced. You may say that it's the way you use the memory not how much you use, that's true but in the future (not just the next 2 years) we'll need double that for complex and dynamic games even if we use every bit of the 512 MB.

"AMD FX-55 even at 2.6 GHz still owns"
This is not true, 1.5-2 year (from now) will have to pass until the desktop CPUs catch up with Cell, the new (and expensive) PPU card will help.

PS3 graphics are 8 times more powerful than a GeForce 6800 Ultra.

"Online doesn’t matter much"

Yes it does, and Microsucks will squeeze enough money from devoted and happy happy customers with the infamous Xbox Live.

"Interface wise is all a matter of opinion, I was raised on the keyboard, so that is my preference"
I'll just say this, you can play a racing game with a keyboard but if you're up against a another good player with a wheel you will lose, the same thing happens with console controllers and mouse keyboard for FPS. The consoles need mouse and keyboard support in their games and OS if they want to compete with PCs in every area but I don't know how successful a game with complex control can be because the console players (you know how they are) want simple and fun things.

"introducing mods, tweaks, and or home made maps in the same realm as money is a horrible idea"
I agree with this.

"Good games will get good reviews, and that will cause people to want to buy it"
There are many games that have good reviews, even classic games like Grim Fandango and Planescape Torment and they didn't sell enough, especially Grim Fandango.

The true advantage of the consoles is price, you'll have to pay more for a high-end PC in 2007 than for a console 7.1 sound HDTV. It costs much to upgrade a PC and to change it completely every 3-4 years and we all know you only have to pay once for a console 7.1 surround sound system 1080p HDTV and you can get the great modchips. Why is the price for a high-end PC justified ? Because you can use it for much more than games, much much more ...
The truth is that the PC games have around 33% market share and if you want to sell big you have to make an at least good game that will appeal to the masses and promote it, it's better to go multi-platform like most developers are doing, believe me if everyone would have enough money and they'd know what to buy and how to use their PC every developer except the ones dedicated to the consoles would make only PC games, but then again if that would be possible less and less people would use Windows and Internet Explorer, Microsoft would shrink, the world would be a better place because we'll all have better quality products.
Now what I'd really like to see is fighting games for the PC, multiplayer on the same PC would be possible with 2 gamepads since the keyboard is not very good for this and for many PCs there could be online fighting servers, LAN fighting, TCP/IP fighting and virtual networks over the Internet. PC gamers would pay for a great Soul Calibur 3 which would be just as good as the original.

I agree that only IT&C news and articles should be posted on this site.

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041123/hall_01.shtml
Doug Church, the man behind Ultima Underworld, the first 3D game, talked about the difference between PC gaming and console gaming. PC games need a little more support and innovation, while I think HL2 is a good interactive game, it didn't make you feel like you're part of something important, it was only an evolution of the genre. Games need heart and soul to be loved, graphics, sound, physics ... is not all that important.

I noticed other than the grammar most can't dispute his argument, so dont hate, if you were raised on keyboard and mouse, a control will never do. What I'm trying to say is consoles are good, but pc gaming is still the way to go, when i can put my ugly face and drive my 98 jeep wrangler in any GTA on a playstation then I might be intrigued in a console, but as long as i can tweak, mod, personalize my gaming expirience only in a pc then there is no question.Just to play CS source, I have to comand 17 buttons and thats running a script. 10 buttons in a controller is a limiting factor. people are saying that the next gen consoles are coming out with more muscle than a pc, that is naive. two different functions. consoles are born obselete. is just like saying" I might be fat but I can lose weight but your ugly."............................ to the English teacher tell me how I did.>:L

sorry to say this but ur a complete noob at cpus. the cpu clock does nothing to do with speed. what u r saying is ridicouls. why would u think 2 huge computer companies are bullding 1 processor when ibm could build it alone. very simple consoles procssors are 10 more powerufl than computers they are made specificaly to do intensivve graphic *mathamtical calculation at highspeed.
fact second most powerful computer in the world is located in cern switzerland were i live and guess what its made out of ps2 processors.
please dont talk complete crap becuase i have done 2 years of computer science

ok i hate to say this but all off u gayass console users, that say that cell procesor is the stronges procesor like FX-57 because u dont know anything of them. Just cause Sony says that... its bullshit Cell procesor is based on high floating point but if u knew something about games is that they dont use high floating point operations. Try to make a cell procesor run vs a FX-57 pc multitasking comptetition and we will see who wins. Im tired of noobs that say that CONSOLES are best and better than a pc PLZ TRY TO PLAY A STRATEGY GAME OR FPS ON A CONSOLE WITH JOYSTICK VS A MOUSE(PC). About online what can i say, pc online beats hard console online system.

AND LAST THING FOR NOOBS u think consoles are strongest because an xbox that has a 800mhz can run doom 3 and a pc of 800mhz cant run it, u know why??? They use the same procesor the diference it is on the OPTIMIZATION that programers do on console SO PLZ STFU AND LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT HARDWARE.

Well I wouldn't really go heavy on the insults about the author being a noob or gay or anything, I really think he's right about the F1 part. But on the other side the PC does have advantages over the consoles, for being more personal: a console is limited to its self, an only one -> the console is the same every time. You can go around and say: I have a better computer that yours, or I have more RAM than you but you have a better CPU or anything, you can change your computer's appearance and anything really.; but you can't have your own console. Your console isn't different. An XboX 360 is ALWAYS an XboX 360. Until the new one comes after 4 or 5 years. So for 4 or 5 years half the (lucky) kids in the world are playing their games on the same identical machine. They can't change it, it's not theirs, it's Microsuck's or it's Sony's console. The PC is the Personal Computer, it tells your story. It's YOU, made out of different parts YOU choose. For the best performance for YOU. Not for MIcropussy's or Sony PLaygaytion.

Damn I talk crap! All I wanna say is PC RULEZ and CONSOLE SUX ASS :P thx to television screen and stupid controllers :P :P :P new consoles are gonna be outdated a year after their debut :P by new Radeon video cards : :P :P :P and thx to consoles a lot of kids will lose their brains JUST playing like every other console player in the world, while REAL PC players CARE about their own PC making it their own FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. Plus I just registered to comment this article... :P No offence but PC is actually better, it keeps moving and I don't see consoles move from they're starting positions.

ok i hate to say this but all off u gayass console users, that say that cell procesor is the stronges procesor like FX-57 because u dont know anything of them. Just cause Sony says that... its bullshit Cell procesor is based on high floating point but if u knew something about games is that they dont use high floating point operations. Try to make a cell procesor run vs a FX-57 pc multitasking comptetition and we will see who wins. Im tired of noobs that say that CONSOLES are best and better than a pc PLZ TRY TO PLAY A STRATEGY GAME OR FPS ON A CONSOLE WITH JOYSTICK VS A MOUSE(PC). About online what can i say, pc online beats hard console online system.

AND LAST THING FOR NOOBS u think consoles are strongest because an xbox that has a 800mhz can run doom 3 and a pc of 800mhz cant run it, u know why??? They use the same procesor the diference it is on the OPTIMIZATION that programers do on console SO PLZ STFU AND LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT HARDWARE.

interestingly, a PC may blow the XBOX away...

(and of course the same will be said in the future for the XBOX360 and PS3)

Yet games like UT2004 and Doom3 come out for PC and they require a complete system rehaul, where as the hardware in the XBOX can run them fine, no upgrades.

I dont get it...

what a ridiculous comment - have you compared how Doom 3 looks on a PC to how it looks on a console?? The Xbox requires no upgrades because it's not having to render the finer detail that you see in the PC version. Also, it depends what PC you have. I have had my PC for nearly 2 years and it still comfortably plays all games with the settings in maximum - no need for a "complete system overhaul". I tested Call of Duty 2 this week and my PC still handles all the high settings just fine.

This article is one of the most ignorant piles of horse crap I think I have ever encountered being passed off as informed journalism.

The author has no educational background in computer architecture and organization; his whole argument reduces to his naive assumption that a bigger number means a faster and/or more powerful part.

The only points worth any consideration are his gripes with consoles not having keyboards and mice (which BTW, they often have later on in their lifecycle), and his notion that computers can be upgraded. Though in consideration of upgrading, a computer user will have to spend a large amount of money for the advantage they gain at the downward end of a console's lifecycle before a new console is released. That being said... for the non-enthusiast gamer, the console is simply the best way to get the most bang for the buck.

The Cell processor is designed for large-scale physics emulation of multiple complex objects (8 of the 9 cores are used for simultaneous floating point calculations, only one is used for sequential processing and those cores all draw directly from independent memory locations allowing them to process chunks of data independently of one another). Go read the white papers...

Both next-generation console CPUs are exceedingly faster than any of the home-market CPUs that will be available for some time to come. When you couple this with the lack of multithreaded programs for the few dual core CPUs currently available, the consoles are a STEAL at the price point considering MS is providing dev kits which facilitate the use of three cores. With this as a given, the next generation Xbox 360 has become a platform on which MS is training the next generation of programmers to utilize multithreading for the future processors that run Windows OSs (conveniently enough for MS, using the windows development environment of course).

I personally will continue to buy Consoles and build my own PCs, but reading articles like the one above makes me sick to my stomach. I joined the site just to comment. The gap is narrowing in my opinion though. It used to be the better resolutions I could get on my computer that kept me playing games on both consoles and computers. No doubt without the computer industry, the consoles would have no test bed on which to make the huge design leaps they have made in recent years. Let us hope that both markets continue to remain separate, or the fruits of competition that push our current technologies to each successive plateau of accomplishment would fallow in the restrictive roots of a closed market.

One thing we all need to remember is that this all boils down to personal preference. I have been a PC gamer for many years, and prefer to continue gaming on my PC. My children on the other hand have a much more fulfilling experience on a console system, so I will be one of the parents in line waiting for the new systems to hit the shelves. Another thing we all need to remember is that the new console systems are being built to do little other then process high end graphics, so they can and will present an argument that they will out perform the current PC

All hardware and system specs aside, if you are only interested in playing video games the PC is not for you, so stick with the console gaming systems. If you are interested in spending countless hours reading magazine articles and internet updates to determine which video card to buy, or how to tweak your RAM the PC is probably for you.

Well first off I like to say that the person who wrote this article doesn't seem to have much insight into the hardware aspects of a console. But he does seem to have a big affection for PC's. I spend a lot of time building PC's and playing games on both PC's and consoles. I must say that when comparing a current high-end PC to a next gen console is not being very fair to the PC. Next Gen (7th gen) consoles are geared primarily to extreme graphics of the likes not seen but by very very few if any high end PC graphics card currently on the market. The writer likes to dwell on numbers i.e. 2 gigs of PC4400 and FX55 @ 2.6 GHz. These number DO NOT shed light on the over all performance because you have two very different architectures. The CPU/GPU units are not set up the same on a PC as they are on the next gen consoles.
True the 6800 ultra has 512MB of DDR but he failed to mention that the PS3 has 6 more vertex pipes (thats double the pipes of a 6800). The clock cycle is at 550 Mhz for the PS3 and only 400 Mhz for the 6800. So really the PS3 has over two times the processing power of the 6800 ultra. The new consoles such as the XBOX 360 has a unified system architecture, 256 GB/s to the eDRAM and base on its system architecture is beyond the PC's over all graphic's potential as stated in the article. Also the console does not have an OS to contend with. The analogy of a NASCAR (console) and Formula 1 Racer (PC) does not hold water and is far fetched. It would take a lot of money and time invested into a PC to equal the graphics in the console. In summery I would like to say I am a PC guy at heart and have a good time building kick-a$$ systems but lets face it I would rather spend $400-500 on a console system than $3000-4000 upgrades on a PC system that is capable of the same tasks. IMO

you obviously don't know where to shop. you are right though, you should just stick with the console because it'll benefit YOU financially...

because you obviously aren't a pc guy if you have to spend 3000 to 4000 on upgrading a pc to make a pc system equivalent to next gen consoles.

the average pc person knows that you can build a pc with just as good gaming performance as a 360, plus all the other things that comes with a pc (ie: 250 gb harddrive, monsterous multitasking options), for a little over 1 large, not 3 to 4.

plus, you should know that the 6800 ultra isn't the HIGH END crop of gfx cards nowadays (even since october of your post), so don't go saying console graphics are "beyond" pc's overall graphic potential.

with 3-4 large, a pc will overkill those consoles in every aspect, but then again, it IS 3-4 large compared to that of 400$ consoles. although, make a console do what a pc does and you'll find it's cost about the same, maybe even more.

get your $$ statistics right before you post about PC. it's ppl like you that make people think PC's aren't worth it. "oh i'm a pc guy but i choose console gaming because it's 10 times less expensive."

also note that PC's are 10 times more effective. (maybe even more? I'll let you decide that.)

After reading most of your comments, I have a question to ask; How are console games made (and to a large extent, most of the major CGI-based films today)? The correct answer is by a team of artists, engineers, programmers, editors, directors, etc. all using powerful computers to generate the cutting edge visuals / mechanics of the games and films we see & play today.

Now I accept the merits of all gaming devices - I even use those dodgy Spectrum emulators for the PC (don't knock it until you've tried the ridiculously simple and addictive games like "Grand National" or "Chuckie Egg"!!) and the original Gamboy for Tetris. But in the middle of all the comparisons to megabytes, gigahertz bandwidth and other technical things, aren't you all forgetting the simple premise - what is the gameplay like?

Half-Life 2 on the PC has a fantastic look and feel to it and I challenge anyone to find a current console game that betters this. Doom 3 also looks fantastic but the problem with both of these games was the gameplay - HL2 was great, but I did feel that once you got over how good it looked, you felt a little cheated by the lack of development with the story and gameplay.

Now the main point I wish to make is that due to codes being leaked/hacked, when released, the complete retail version of Half-Life 2 was already more than one year old. Imagine what has been developing during this time, more visually stunning graphics? Better than ever AI? Yet more advances in GPU / CPU technology? Chances are, all of these things have been developed further which leads me to believe that by January '06, the affordable PC technology (less than £200 for a high-end graphics card) available to the consumer will no doubt surpass the technology in either the PS3 or Xbox360.

Remember, it is a PC that creates and develops these games, not consoles creating and developing PC games so why on earth would a games console be more powerful than any of the high-end PC's available today??? (can you imagine Peter Jackson huddled over a PS3 muttering, "which damn button makes this gorilla more hairy….I need more hair!!)

The subtle nuances of what a PC can do is obviously lost on some of you…and yes, before you accuse me of dressing my PC up, taking it out for dinner and calling it Doris, I do own games consoles and thoroughly enjoy using them!

Your logic is a bit flawed, and misinformed. Sure, computers are used to develop games, even those that are run on consoles, but that doesn't mean necessarily that the development platform has to be faster than the end platform that it runs on. For instance, a computer could run a game at an unplayable framerate, such as 10 fps, while the same program runs at 30 fps or higher on the console hardware. It doesn't matter whether the program is playable or not on the PC, because to develop all the individual assets and pieces of content in a game does not require a machine to run the entire game at a playable speed. All the crucial test runs are done on the end hardware anyway.

The X360 will be significantly ahead of anything that exists on the PC at the time of release, as the visual quality of the games bear this out. Now, the PS3 architecture is just so revolutionary and radically different from anything on the PC that this machine is just a gaming beast, capable of pumping out visuals that coluld be mistaken for CG (Before you even comment, have you seen the MGS4 trailer?). I can't even fathom when PC hardware updates, with all the inherent flaws and limitations of its architecture, will allow games to reach this level of quality.

Ok, first Off. PC Will AlWAYS Crush the consoles. For one thing who needs a console when you can play your game, access the internet and do more sh*t? Second, who like a controller? keyboard and mouse is the best thing ever. Can u honestly tell me that u like shooting people with a little joystick? a mouse crushes that... the way i see it is that the consoles are just trying to cram all this stuff in a little box that u just plug in and ur set. Basically its just for people that are to cheap to buy a pc. and ARe A n00b. Pc's are constantly be upgraded all the time!! New graphics cards, processors etc. So in conclusion for the console to keep up with the pc. its going to have to be a pc. Ok got to say one more thing. If you found out after you boought this playstation 3 that the pc just came out with this new graphics card and proccessor that blows the playstation 3 out the water (which they already have) you cant upgrade the playstation 3 ur fucked. so get a pc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Statix - I appreciate your comments but you still fail to meet my challenge of finding a current console game that betters the look and feel of Half-Life 2. Comparing trailers of unreleased games against an actual working PC game is pointless (it's kinda like comparing "The Day After Tomorrow" trailer to the whole "Jurassic Park" film - the trailer may be great, but the film as a whole didn't quite cut it!).

Whilst I'm on the subject of trailers, yes the MGS4 trailer is excellent, but watch the HL2 trailer from E3 2003 and tell me that it isn't excellent (also, bear in mind that the tech used for HL2 is now over 2 years old)? Do games ever look, feel & play like their trailer...trash!!! Anyway, basing your whole opinion on a game just by the trailer is a bit silly, isn't it?

Also, you don't hear Sony or Microsoft bleating about surpassing the 1ghz GPU processor power mark do you, why? Because they haven't been able to do this yet! By spring 2006, there will be PC games available that will fully utilise the new x1800 cards, 7800GTX graphics cards, 64bit chips out there and will be much better than any console game.

Remember, as soon as a console is released, shortly after, the technology moves on and the console becomes obsolete.

(PS. Of course, you do know that it's a well known fact that FPS gaming is much better on PC's than consoles.....don't you?)

(PPS. On release, did you think that the PS2 was better than PC's?)

Peace out....

Okay...let's see now...

Half-Life 2, at 1600X1200 resolution on a monitor with a 4ms response time...Counter-Strike 2, with no lag, at the same resolution/response time...

Anyone got a console doing that?

Good night, ladies.

I got a PS3 playing a Full HD (1920 x1080) game at 60fs... It was a launch game.

Its called Ridge Racer 7. It refresh rate is less than 4ms.

Note to people, wait to see the opponent before commenting. Kevin Keegan did it to Sir Alex Furguson but then his Newcastle Utd team dropped a 15 point lead in the league at the end of the season as AF's Man Utd claimed the Premiership Title.

Wow, I must say this is a pretty badly written article grammar wise. In terms of content, he seems biased a lot towards the PC side and appears to dislike, if not hate, consoles. I would have to agree and disagree with him. I feel that to best experience the gaming world, oen has to be very open minded and not restrict him or herself to just one thing. I play games on consoles such as the Playstation 2 and XBOX as well as play games on my PC. The thing about pc's are that they are much more expensive to keep up to date than it is to simply buy a new gen console. It is without doubt however, that within a year of release, pc's will catch up to new gen consoles. The debate about cell processors I have read above is quite amusing aswell. Many people are arguing over which architecture is better; the cell processor or the processors we know today such as the Pentium 4. The fact of the matter is, Cell Processors are the processors of the future. Microsoft is already thinking of gearing their next OS to be most efficient when used with cell processors. Cells are much smaller than regular processors and can be up to 10x more powerful, even if specs read lower than Pentium and AMD processors. The fact that the PS3 will contain a Cell processor is very impressive. However, it will make many pc users happy to know that the programs and os's will have cell support not to far from now. The fact is. the current pc cannot compare to the power of the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. It is obsolete, for now. The pc will catch up to and surpass these next gen consoles in a certain amount of time, just as PS2 and XBOX are not nearly as powerful as current powerful pc's are. In terms of people enjoying keyboards and mice with pc's more than the controllers on consoles, it will make them happy to know that both Xbox 360 and the PS3 users can purchase keyboards and mice for their consoles. My, I believe I may have rambled on quite a bit.

Basically, the fact of the matter is that it is an ongoing cycle; a new gen console will come to the market, surpassing all current pc's and making obsolete all previous consoles. Then, as time passes, the pc will overtake the console and will continue to stay in the lead for usually a good 4 to 5 years before another console hits the shelves. I for one play pc games almost 90% of the time i'm playing games. This is primarily because graphics are much better on my GeForce 7800 GTX than a mere 64 Mb card found in the PS2. However, the Xbox 360 and PS3 will still be more powerful than my pc for at least a good year after looking at the speed at which new hardware is being released for the pc.

In conclusion, the next gen consoles are the way to go if you like high definition gaming that will surpass the gaming experience of a pc, a lesser cost. I will not hesitate at all about whether to purchase a new console or not. At $500 CAD for the Xbox 360, one could pay the same amount and only get a "good/very good" graphics card. To get the top, one would be looking at spending a good $1600 (assuming you are going to resort to SLI technology) and this setup still wouldn't surpass the power of the next gen consoles. PC's are great and will always be great, but there will always be that time that they are no longer on the top for a period of time as next gen consoles release. I know that I will still continue to play a large amount of PC games however despite what consoles arrive.

ok.. this is retarded.. sure the "bad ass" next gen consoles are cheaper than a sick pc, but the really get the benifit out of your schweet console you gotta spend 2,000$ for a HDTV that supports 1080i so a decent gaming rig is really not as expensive as everyone thinks. oh and btw how many people used there consoles to find this article and flame pcs..... bottom line update your computer you used to find this site with the money you would have spent on the "coolest next gen" system. P.S. i don't care what anyone says.. pc s pwn consoles

Both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 will offer true 'next-gen' performance in today/the future's console games. Both systems give you components worth much more than they're being sold to you for (the sell high quality components cheap and make up for the revenue losses later scheme). If you were to sit and add up what Xbox 360 would be giving you and especially what the PS3 would be giving you, component by component, we're getting more than a 'deal' but rather a _complete_ steal.

Although both systems are very powerful spec-wise the PS3's Cell processor absolutely destroys X-360's triple core PPC cpu in terms of vector processing/vector stream processing -number crunching, ability to create superior AI, game physics, highly complex computations... whatever involves raw horsepower requiring a mass load of available computational resources. It is true that X-360's cpu has 3x the "general purpose" use advantage when compared to the Cell but Sony and co. designed the Cell to be an undisputed beast when it comes to vector processing in parallel/streaming and NOT so much for general purpose use.

I've read several technical comparisons, including anandtech's review of the X-360 and the PS3's hardware capabilities and anandtech states that a major factor of X-360's triple core cpu that could potentially limit performance is the fact that the cpu (counting the cores with it) is an 'in order' instruction execution chip.. meaning the instructions _have to be_ executed in order. This would limit the overall performance of the cpu in real-world scenarios and this is part of the reason why you see multiple cores, to make up for some of the power lost here due to this. The 6 total hardware threads is impressive but as it was already stated very few games at present are even optimized on multi-core architectures so it'll be a while before that will come into action.

Some people also look past the fact that while X-360's got 512MBs of unified GDDR3 main system memory the ram is still only clocked @ 700MHz compared to PS3's half and half dedicated design of the GPU's 256MBs of GDDR3 @ 700MHz & the Cell's access to it's own 256MBs of XDR rambus @ 3.2GHz. XDR is higher quality ram and according to Sony XDR is the ONLY ram technology that would suffice for the Cell's need for so much memory bandwidth to stay busy. I'm not entirely sure if the X-360's total system memory is 512MBs of GDDR3 or if it's actually 522MBs since I'm not sure if they're counting the 10MBs of embedded DRAM already in this figure (probably not). In terms of total system memory bandwidth available, however, the PS3's got a few GBs to spare over X-360 (I'm not counting that show-boat 256GB/s # from the eDRAM in X-360 since it's such a small amount of special purpose 'cache' ram).

X-360's GPU is more advanced than PS3's RSX GPU, the few that argue this should do some more research and compare both architectures to one another. The reality is, however, that Sony doesn't need RSX to be more advanced or even more powerful spec-wise than X-360's GPU since the whole 'key' to the PS3 (and the billions of dollars spent on R&D) is the Cell chip. The Cell chip the power of the RSX (2x the power of a 6800 Ultra) is a force that sounds on paper much more powerful than X-360's triple core cpu it's next-gen advanced ATi GPU combination. Depending on how Sony uses the Cell and RSX together it could either be a really great or a really ugly relationship and gamers will be the first to notice. If the PS3 turns out to be easier to develop for than the PS2 (everyone's hoping) then things should turn out and some of the Sony hype machine should be able to be lived up to.

That's great Mel, but shouldn't you be mentioning the FPS you're getting in that resolution if you're even going to bother bragging about this at all? Having a great ping is one thing, having a great resolution WITH a great frame rate is another. The 'lag' you're saying you don't have is dependant soley on the connection type you've got, a PC wouldn't be any different in terms of a lower ping than a dedicated console connected through the same network medium and connection type. The PS3 will be able to render output to 2 HDTV screens simultaneously in 1080p through the use of it's 2 HDMI outs. This isn't impressive enough for you? You're a hard girl to please.

Bullet, I'm running an Alienware Aurora 7500, with Fx-57 processor, dual Nvidia 7800 GTX KO's in SLI, and a RAID 0 320GB dual HD system. I'm playing via cable modem, and living large.

Consoles are great, I'm not hating on them; in fact, I'm considering selling this Alienware PC on ebay b/c work is catching up to life, and I need and Apple for certain intercontinental productivity issues...in that case, I'd be looking at an xbox 360 or a ps3.

But let's not act like the cutting edge is found in consoles; a nice package is found there, but the cutting edge is PC gaming and gaming rigs. We all know that. The very process by which consoles are developed and extended in the marketplace precludes the idea of them being cutting edge, particularly at that price point. So let's not play games. Actually, no...let's.

Let's play them on the only platform that can be truly cutting edge right now for consumers (let's exclude development platforms): the PC platform.

I'm off to play BF2 at 1600x1200 at 100 fps...

Need for Speed Most Wanted is availble for PlayStation 2 in Saudi Arabia.

Consoles have 1 main thing going for them. They are all the same.
With the PC riggs they are all differnet. This makes a big problem for the Dev teams. They have to "COMPILE" the code on a low end PC to make sure it will run fine on low end and high end system. This can make a game run lil-bit slower on the pc side. And then there is the bang for your buck problem. My main pc is a dual xeon 3.6 with 2gigs of ram and a asus 6800 nvidia card.. My 360 blows it away... sigh.. I will always be a pc gamer 1st but the consoles are starting to woop on the pcs right now. take a look at BF2 demo on the 360.. It looks and plays great. You have voice with your whole team. Walk into a game store and all you see is console stuff and 1 little area for pc games. I was playing boxing on the 360 and this lady walked by me and said. "Why is that guy holding that controler and watching tv" It looks that real... I havn't seen anything on the pc that looks that good for only 400 bucks. I can't trick the wife into spending 2k on a new computer when I can play the same games for 400 plus the price of the game. Plus unlike PC games you can resell it at the store and buy something else.

pc
http://www.subsim.com/e3_2004/battlefield_2_pc_image_4.jpg

360
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/715/715590/img_3378125.html

I think when it comes down to it.. It's all about the game play. For me I like my Mouse and Keyboard for FSP games, but for racing games and arcade fighting blah blah blah sports n stuff I like consoles.

Street fighter for SNES still gets played at my house. but we play it on a modded out xbox :-)

Oh yeah... and 4 of your friends can't play on your 2k pc at the sametime...

Remember N64 and the sports games.. 4 people playing on the same system.. good times good times... Puff puff pass!

I think when WOW comes out for the Xbox 360 we will see more people buying into the 360.

For playing games... Consoles wins hands down.. But for cutting edge 1 person hardcore games.. PC wins but man does it cost alot.

PS3 will have 2 videos cards running in sli mode for aorund 600 bucks. Right now you can get quad sli for the pc. But thats not gunnah help the game play. Yeah you'll have 150 fps but it will still be the same game as it is on the 400 buck xbox 360. Alot of people turn down the graphics on the pc anyway after they have been playing for a few months. You can still have a lil bit of fun playing PACMAN.. or mega man on a SNES for around 20 bucks.

Why I'm I posting this... I should be playing games.
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1190

crtek 2 engine looks so damn good! So does the new unreal 3 engine.. whooooohaoooo

I have all the systems so I win!!! :-P

well who likes splitscreen eh (console multiplayer)? specially in halo 2 where blue team looks like dead pixels in the tv.

hah kidding..i understand your point.

Wow. First of all, shame on Softpedia for publishing the article. No need to explain why as the author does a sufficient job of implicating him or herself.

I’d like to go on record as saying I’m a big fan of both PC and console gaming. On the PC side of things, the Command and Conquer franchise has produced some of my all time favourites.

However, my biggest contention is with the authors analogy of likening a PC to a Formula 1 car, and a console to a Nascar. This is just pure rhetoric.

PC’s and the operating systems that run on them are designed and oriented to perform a broad range of tasks; gaming, surfing the web, word processing, multi-media, running the operating system itself, anti-virus software, etc etc. I’d equate a high end gaming PC to a top of the line BMW sports sedan. No matter how much you tune the engine or the driving characteristics of the car, it still carries all the extras like cup holders, GPS navigation, the weight of power window motors, an air conditioner, windshield wipers, leather seats and headrests, etc etc.

Now consider a console. Nearly all, if not every aspects of the platform has been optimized for one purpose and one purpose alone. Gaming performance. If anything the console equates to a Formula 1 car, where every aspect has been optimized for a single purpose, which is racing performance without the added weight of all the extra luxuries the BMW totes around. The console outperforms because every aspect of it has been stripped down and streamlined for gaming.

You can put a 1000 hp engine into a BMW sports sedan, but it will never be able to outperform a 1000 hp Formula 1 car. Even if you put 1500 hp in a BMW sports sedan, you still couldn’t outperform a 1000 hp Formula 1 car because every aspect of its architecture and operation has been adapted for sheer racing performance.

I do however agree with the argument that after a few years, the fast evolving PC will surpass the next-gen consoles of today. But please, who has the money to constantly stay on the forefront of technology and continuously upgrade their PC? I’d rather save the money and take my girlfriend out for a nice dinner.

As a side note to all those PC elitists out there, good luck playing Halo 3 anytime soon.

ok.. this is retarded.. sure the "bad ass" next gen consoles are cheaper than a sick pc, but the really get the benifit out of your schweet console you gotta spend 2,000$ for a HDTV that supports 1080i so a decent gaming rig is really not as expensive as everyone thinks. oh and btw how many people used there consoles to find this article and flame pcs..... bottom line update your computer you used to find this site with the money you would have spent on the "coolest next gen" system. P.S. i don't care what anyone says.. pc s pwn consoles

PC and consoles will never agree. But I will say this the pc is better than consoles. There are more possibiltes than what most people think that own a console. The pc can do so much more look at NVIDIAS newest video card the 8800. Get two of those and do SLI and you get more for your money than a console. But consoles are still good but I am in favor of the pc. But the reason I think most people don't play pc is because they don't know what we are talking about half of the time. Look at HALO 2 now that windows vistia will be out soon the graphics will be tripled compared to XBOX and playing it on the XBOX 360. And I agree with the article that the PS3 & XBOX 360 will be outdated. And plus I say this because I read the back of the box of the XBOX 360. I have two NVIDIA GEFORCE 7900 video cards in SLI and a INTEL DUO CORE 2 processor. I must say COD 2 looks like krap on the xbox 360. And I really don't care that the xbox 360 has 3 cpus. The pc wins and I don't care argue all you want I have played a 360 and it sucks. And it will be very interesting when pc will be able to play against the 360. Because the controller gives you no experience. I could snipe a person twice as fast than someone with a controller. And those of you that say they did their research try again there is so much more than what you think. Plus look at the game CRYSIS it will be nothing when they put it on the Xbox 360 or PS3 and I will gurantee the console will never win.

!!!PC PWNS CONSOLE!!!

I'm a PC gamer but I'm not against consoles. I have to say I started playing video games with the PS One and never with the PC. Then, I begun to like it and when I saw the graphics on PlayStation 2 I chose to stay with the PC. But when PS3 came out, I was really confused. Its graphics are amazing, and that's a fact, and all the features it includes are real tempting, but I don't think it is better than PC games. It's true, video games companies are all releasing titles for the PS3 more than for the PC, but that's just for new, since it is brand-new. Although some titles are released for both. Someone here at the forum said that PCs are upgradeable and I agree with that. That's a point against consoles, given that they having certain limit of graphics, they cannot go any further until the next edition is launched. But PCs can be taken to the next level, if you have a few bucks in your pocket, of course. Now, I am not saying consoles suck, beacause Wii and the PS3 don't suck at all, they're great. But eventually they'll get defeated by the PCs, one way or another. Consoles have the great advantage of not having to deal with a game's requierments. I mean, when you buy a game for the PC and you read how many memory it needs or what video card you have to have, it becomes a pain in the ass. But with the consoles you can play games with a high quality of graphics when with the PC you've got to buy other things in order to get to play high graphics games. But, if you actually think about it, if you have a normally powerful PC and want to play a good-graphic game (and not having to reduce the resolution and level of detail) you can invest money in buying those stuffs. And that money can also go to buying a console. So it's really up to you. Not everybody can have both, but some do and they are luckly for that. Anyway, I wouldn't change my mind about the PC, I believe it's better but if I could have a next-gen console as well, I wouldn't doubt it for one second. I prefer the PS3 of all others, but the fact that costs 600 dollars is really annoying. A few of us can't afford to buy it. But, hey, the PS3 does not have an year old yet, so when the prices go down, I would get mine. This is only for people who prefer the PS3 like me. I don't know if you noticed that. Anyway, Consoles and PCs are great!! But I'll stay with the PC until they invent a console that reaches way beyond what a PC can give you. See ya.

Like to say i have read most but not all. A comment on the CPU point is that IBM has its CPU's in all 3 new consoles. The Cell is exclusive to the PS3, IBM servers and Full HD LCD and Plasma screens. The Cell has won IEEE technology awards and is what IBM is going to develop not the conventional PC CPUs.

IBM has designed almost all the top supercomputers in the world i think they know what they are doing, altho SUN is up there with them easily.

In all this, comparing console CPUs to PC isnt worth the effort since consoles are RISC based CPUs and PC are CISC. Tho the xbox 1 was a useless Celeron CISC CPU with almost twice the MHz of the PS2 heh.

On to the graphics, the final rendering and physics will actually be done on the Cell not the RSX where on the xbox 360 it all has to be done on the ATi chip so it has to be better than the RSX but does not mean the over all quality is, just a different way. Now actually making games and movies is a whole different story, yes its done on a PC, is it done on a home PC with SLI 8800 Ultra no. Look at the movie Cars its done on racks of HP DL380 or DL580 serves. Yes racks, alot of them all with 4 Xeon CPUs and it took 16hrs per frame to render that movie.

Money always wins more you pay the more you get but how much is too much, none of the current consoles even get close to too much.

Now would people stop comparing things that are too different, PC are FPS kings and not due to more power just the mouse. But consoles were never intended to compete with that, there are games for it but mostly never made for the internet for hours of online play against other people in the world.

Almost done, PCs fail right now because of the OS, vista is almost as big of a step back as Windows ME. I am not a Mac fan nor Linux and not windows ether, i just use what i have to, windows. Hardware is so minor compared to software arguing over specs is a was of the memory this web page takes up.

If you are looking for truly amazing CGI glasses you put on, the game is projected in front of you and you hold a gun in your hands and point and shoot, where you look is where the game moves the screen. This is possible but this is in the too much category. Anyone that is comparing a PC to a console is just thinking too small.

Shame the PS3 is too advanced right now in terms of compilers to fully use the Cell but in time this will advance and the Cell will have started a technology revolution, may it end up that the first release either fails or takes off in a huge way its too soon to tell.

Technology is the winner not the PC or console.

P.S go look up the IBM roadrunner, that is power. Why do you think IBM spent $400mil US on the Cell, because it wasn't just for the ps3. Open up your Sony Bravia you might already find a Cell in that not sure but it will be there soon.

Forgot to say, please leave the reviews to people that are qualified to do so else it just adds more unneeded information or should i say data to the internet.

ps3 will always be better than pc because the games are developed just only specific machine, good fps ,no upgrades, only the new cool game genres

This is quite a while after the article was written but today even though the ps3 and xbox 360 are still somewhat new, the pc has EXTREMELY more effective gpu's than them. i was researching nvidias new 9 series video cards, and not only are they incredibly incredibly fast, they are even working on the SLI x 4 for them.

Going back to the article he had a 6800 ultra... hardly worth crap today, yes the pc upgrades far more quickly than any console ever will. Also no the consoles don't need hardly any ram they aren't meant for tasking. Gaming only. Completely different.

Back to the speed difference....

Core 2 Quad Extreme processors are out currently, plenty over 10x as fast as those pentium 4 3.0 ghz processors. Not to mention Intel is working on Quad Core processors currently, which will at least double what is currently the top of the market today.

Nothing will EVER surpass the pc. Period.

Well, it has been quite some time since the PS3 was lauched at yet there is no configuration available on the PC market that can come even slightly close to the PS3.

And too make matters worse for Pro-PC people, the PS3 is not even close to its final potential. The games thus far have not even dented the performances it is capable of.

So, although PCs can be upgraded easily, it will be very expensive and a very long time until it is at a par. Put 4 GPU's in you PC and yet it will not match what the PS3 can do. Put 3 Dual Core Processors in there and yet it will not match the PS3. Put both 4 GPU's and 3 Dual Cores in and again, it will not match the PS3.

To put it bluntly one thing is letting the PC down, and this is not going to change until 2011 ... the motherboards speeds. Its nice posting stats about what hardware you have inside the case, but if they can't talk to each other fast enough then it is a hell of a lot of money and time wasted when a product costing �289 would have reaped much much better results.

Just to finally kill of this argument.... Killzone 2!

I very much doubt that you have put any research into that statement, as the PC can easily outperform the PS3 on all levels. No hard feelings. =D

An interesting point to mention motherboard speeds. People say "upgrading for £100 will make you pc more powerful than console X" but they always forget I cant just go buy a graphics card, RAM, sound card and ignore the fundamentals of the CPU, which costs on average £150 for one of a similar standard to a PS3/360. A PC can be as powerful, heck, more powerful than a console, but for a much larger price. Ill present it like this, 60Gig Xbox 360 = £150. If you can build me a PC more powerful than a Xbox 360 for cheaper than that, Ill eat my hat. My current PC is over 10 years old and works fine, I only use it for RTS's and classic games, but it has 4Gb of RAM which do interact. That really means bull if my motherboard doesnt have a fast enough processor speed in Mhz to actually transfer data quickly enough through the buffer, the interupts are too slow to allow full optimisation of my memory and Graphics Card...

i think there is an element of bias towards the PC considering he has spent alot of money on one (by te sounds of it), actually a huge amount of bias.

Here's the simple truth. A PC costs more because it can do infinitely more than a console. As a result of the skills I learned from owning a PC, (mostly for gaming) I now have a full tuition scholarship to a University and a very good job working on computers.

My hours and hours of Halo got me... put into an alternative school in Jr. High for failing so badly :)

pc is and allways will be better than ps3 i have both and am very disapointed with ps3 its like nintendo 64 compared to my laptop

It's not true that the PS3 games haven't reached the potential of the PS3 console. I've seen the choppy frame rates in the Need for Speed Undercover game for example. It's also not true that you need more money for PC gaming considering most people already have a PC and just need an upgrade for gaming. I spent £47 on a 8800gt card, overclocked a cheap Intel Dual Core and bought a bit more ram. Using Need for Speed as an exaple again there's no issues with frame rates and all the details at full including Anti-Alliasing.

The Consoles are always slightly better when they are released but given a couple of years PC gaming can achieve more without spending too much. If more PC games were released then consoles would be utterly pointless.

As I already own a PC for my day to day purposes, It would make much more sense for me to upgrade my PC than to buy a brand new console + HDTV. Given the affordable 9 series GPUs and Quad Core processors, I believe it can run all games for the next two years on full resolution!

I have been reading through the comments and many of them seem to treat the Ps3 as a god like computer well your all wrong, its really one huge mess:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/286/1007286/ps3-hardware-slow-and-broken

This is just one of the many articles revealing the real "Ps3"

(I am a ps3 and pc owner and have better gaming experience on the pc than on the ps3)

Guys calm down,
PS3 and XBOX 360 have RISC processors you can't compare PC processors and specifications with PS3 or XBOX specifications. Is like comparing a car with a tractor. Which one is faster but which one is more powerful? The PS3 and XBOX configuration is specialized for floating point calculations which are needed for games. The PC are specialized for multiple type of operations. So in conclusion you can't compare them...

At the phrase "Longevity is also an issue that PC's own at" you lost all credibility. Sure you can "buy" longevity, but in terms of PC gaming, that will cost you a ton more than updating your console every 5 or so years. The fixed hardware of the console is their greatest advantage, software developers have to work within that limitation, instead of writing sloppy code and counting on faster and faster hardware to make up for their lazyness. Not to mention the online community on for example xbox live, blows anything PC's have to offer out of the water. But to each his own I suppose.

@ Calin, sorry buddy.. You have no clue what you're talking about. When it comes to PC's, they have much more powerful processors. Besides, when it comes to PC GAMES, It's video cards first, processors second. Please don't open you're mouth if you don't know what you're talking about,

Its funny because in a couple of years or so we will have DCB (Diamond circuit board) instead of PCB. If you dont belive me google it.

PS3 and Xbox 360 now cannot stand agianst PC with Core2 Quad with Nvidia GF100. That's the summary of article.

The article was written in May 2005 - as I type this almost exactly 5 years ago. PC hardware has moved on massively in that time, both in terms of power and relative affordability, whereas the consoles - for obvious reasons - haven't changed much if at all. As time progresses, developers will start hitting the ceiling with what they can achieve with the consoles fixed hardware and as PC games draw ahead, it'll be time for a new generation of consoles.

I totally agree. Look at PC now as of 2010 PC has 3.3 GHRz processors that have 6 CORES!!!
XBOX360 has a 3.2 trio-core processor. So PC is over 2 times as fast as XBOX. Xbox has good graphic some people say. Look at Video Cards that you can put in PC, currently there are 2 gig video cards (yes that is some pimping graphics). Some Mother Boards have 2 or more PCI-E X16 slots which allows the owner to use cross-fire GPU (graphics) so if 2 gig video cards give some kick ass graphics imagine what 2, 2 gig video cards can do. THATS 4 GIGS of Video Processing. and just think, the PS3 has half a gig of DDR3 ram. I bought a computer recently for roughly $1000, it came with 8 gigs DDR3 ram standard. thats 16 times more then PS3, in my opinion they need to make new consoles agains =).

Yes, the PC is more powerful today, though it is destroyed.
Pirates ruined PC gaming (DRM\late and * ports\exclusive developers dropping out\etc).

Ok recent comments I see on a 5 year old article, haha.

Just going to comment on the last 2 since the one before that states it has been 5 years.

when Xbox and ps3 came out, it was far superior to almost any pc that you could build for $3000 or less. I'll just point out, you can't compare direct stats when it comes to the dedicated specs of a console.

Ps3 and Xbox have similar specs with ps3 having an edge overall. and a PC nowadays to run games as smoothly and with equal graphics, built custom will still cost you $1500 (more if you get someone else or buy stock)

So those that argue their 4gigs of ram is superior to the 512 ram in a ps3 is really just looking at numbers. the 512ram in a ps3. Now the video ram in a ps3 runs at 48 GB/s. So lets look at NVIDIA under ultra high end video cards. They now have one that runs at 102 GB/s, HOLY CRAP (Didn't expect it to be that high, its called the NVIDIA Quadro FX5800) yes there are other stats that matter but damn, so yes PCs can be a lot more powerful than consoles. but wait, that card alone runs at $3000, lets look a bit lower, something more comparable, there's one here thats the FX4600 that runs at 67 GB/s, ok still higher but more comparable.... price tag...$2000

ok ok... so for a video card that runs about the same as ps3 for video ram, lets say you need to spend $1000 just on the card. Let's be more generous and say you find a good deal, half price $500 for just the card. Yes i can continue on other parts of a PC and how they are easily matchable to console specs or superior, but do I need to? I think everyone knows that, they always knew that.

But call me french, I'll stick to spending $200-300 on a console for gaming and $200 on a laptop for my computer purposes.

So yes, PC will potentially keep up, but people will need to spend more and more on it for video games and as we have already started seeing. PC will be less and less for gaming as the years continue. Money matters in the end.

The cards you are referring to are NOT FOR GAMING, they are intended to RENDER frames to make videos and multimedia stuff, they cost that because using them, allows gaming and movie companies to get millions of dollars in return.

That aside, ati's 5xxx series and nvidia gtx4xx series (mid-end, high-end), can do a lot more graphical stuff than a ps3 or xbox, those consoles are outdated graphically.

The thing is, a ps3 or an xbox are now around 200-300 bucks, but 4 years ago they costed 500-600 dollars, thats the price of some of the latest videocards, but they outperform consoles by a great margin, there is no ps3 or xbox360 right now that can run the latest games at 2560 x 1600 60fps, no matter how fast the ram on a ps3 is, it just can't.

Sorry Paul R but your "for a video card that runs about the same as ps3 for video ram, lets say you need to spend $1000 just on the card" its incorrect....

it should be like this ----> "a videocard that MOPS THE FLOOR, BACK AND FORTH WITH A PS3 OR XBOX 360 FROM NOW ON AND UNTIL SONY OR MICROSOFT RELEASE ANOTHER CONSOLE IS GOING TO COST YOU AROUND 350 and 550 bucks".

P.S. but console games are good, too bad they don't get StarCraft II at least now.....we'll see in 5 years....lol.

Yeah for sure, $350 bucks can easily get you a video card that is superior to any console in graphics.

you can make a gaming pc that easily surpasses consoles for about $1000 if you are building it yourself. But in the end it is still more expensive on PC, that's just how it is and always will be. They target different audiences and there's no reason to compare them.

PC is for dedicated gamers, I use to be, but not anymore. I would love to play SC2 like I use to play SC but I can't justify spending the money yet, maybe once D3 comes out I'll have 2 good reasons to get a PC(Since neither of those games would be any good without a keyboard/mouse), but in the meantime I know that my PS3 plays any of my games smoothly, without lag, and doesn't need any maintenance.

I read this thread, as part of some research I was doing on the Xenon processor, which the Wikipedia artcile had bigged as a (theoretical) 96GLOP processor. Just shows you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia - after reading the IBM tech article, I discovered that only 6 hardware threads were available, giving a 3.2 * 2 * 6 = 38.4 GFLOPS. roughly equivalent to a modern 4 core processor before allowing for out of order execution, L1 instruction pre-fetching, L3 cache and the other things that account for a single AMD K10 core having 748 million transistors on-chip as opposed to the 165 total of an XBOX CPU 3 core. Comparisons are tricky, but try writting an a FP test program for the Xenon that gets off-die and uses RAM. You'll be horrified to see how in the real world an I5/I7/Phenom II performs against a 2003 vintage processor A single RV770 core on my GPU yields 1.2 TFLOPS, as opposed to 240MFLOPS on an XBOX. I think the author was prescient, at twice the price, a PC at the moment has an order of magnitude more processing power than a console, making consoles possibly the worst bucks/FLOPS deal in the known universe in 2010. And Microsoft say you will have to put up with this until 2015.....

I'm confused, because everything i read says that the 360 runs around 1 Tflop, and the ps3 runs just under 2 Tflops?

i think you are right.an well equipped pc is very good for gaming.another thing is that ps3s are hard to repair if they get damaged.it is hard to play action games in ps3s because they dont have mouse.

PC rocks dude..
i mean forever..
just put high specs for games and thats it

there is no scientific evaluation among gaming consoles.for instance-pc's gaming performance canbe evaluated by fps (frame rate per second).in a nutshell,it's very difficult indeed.

So as a summary, for people who just want to play a game and have a bit of a laugh get yourself a console, but if you are a serious gamer PC is the only way to go.

Hi the article overlooks the one reason consoles sell more... most of the population work 8 hours a day on a pc and so have no desire to go home and sit in the same uncomfortable chair and desk situation. This takes away from most of the enjoyment of pc games for me. In terms of performance you might be right but its all coming down to numbers which everyone knows is no fun.

PC's are better. End of story.

pc ftw

PC is the gaming KING

PC all the way to Gold Award Podium

You have a rubbish computer that i wouldnt even accept for free. You cant compare your pc to anything. I know for a fact that pc is better than console but in your case that is untrue so please think before you post about rubbish that you have.