Xbox 360 or PS3 (for a PC gamer)


Recommended Posts

I have a decent PC able to run latest games, a PS2, Gamecube, and 360 and I intend on getting the rev and PS3 so don't think of me as biased, but I have a feeling the 360 will be more to your needs. Ecspecially now Valve has signed a deal with Microsoft to release games on the 360.

While I am a pc gamer above a console gamer you can't tell me a pc is cheaper to keep up with than a console. I bought a $400 video card a year and a half ago and it struggle to run the latest games. Oh yeah, I spent $200 upgrading my ram also about 6 months ago and probably will be buying another video card in about 6 months. Good luck running your pc above 1080p resolution, you must've spen $1000 to SLI your rig. What a value.

I don't have an SLi rig, I have Asus X800XT PE and iiyama monitor that goes up to stupid resolutions and refresh rates! It also plays HDTV content pretty well thank you! :p

I would steer toward the waiting. It?s tough to even make a comparing 360 (which I played last night) and some imaginary PS3 that I wouldn?t be able to play if I could get into E3 next week. If you looking for something now try 360 I?m going to in about an hour form now when I get home. Hay and if you don?t like it you can trade it in on a PS3 in a year when it comes out.

LOL sorry to sound like a fan boy i own system ps1 and ps2 but I believe in ?seeing is believing? and I have seen 360 and only heard about PS3 even as a attendee and CES 06

sorry, but you are wrong.

the PS3 will outperform anything you've ever seen before with the amazing new Cell processor technology, and the best GPU technology from Nvidia that will be able to deliver the amazing Unreal 3 engine at 1080p.

SOE makes me wonder but i think they will pick it up and go with it.

I personally own a Xbox360 and its a huge waste of money. and i would wait for the PS3 and get it. I have it pre-ordered and i cant freakin wait to break that beast open.

No, they will look better. If you compare the original Xbox games running on the xbox to running on the xbox360. just running it on a better system makes it look better. it may not be overwhelming but i know that in Halo 2 there is a pretty big difference between the two.

Not many, few have. Valve software and Gabe Newell has many horror stories of trying to port his compaie's creations to the xbox/xbox360 platform. It resulted in almost completely re-writing the code for Half-Life 2 to the Xbox platform. Even if your claim is correct with id software, Quake 4 is horrid on the xbox360, and much much better on the PC.

The Xbox 360 really is not the option to go with, having one myself. I would not buy an Xbox 360 the PS3 will be much more worthwile, yes more expensive but a much better system.

You obviously fell out of a very large tree as a child and hit every branch on the way down. Your post has been rated...

post-21440-1146181229.jpg

Edited by SecretAgentMan

I don't have an SLi rig, I have Asus X800XT PE and iiyama monitor that goes up to stupid resolutions and refresh rates! It also plays HDTV content pretty well thank you! :p

1080p is 1920x1080 res. just so you know. Try running FEAR or Battlefield 2 at those resolutions with the eye candy turned on. Now are you sure you really run resolutions above 1080p, if so you have the fastest X800 ever.

ur gunna see a lot of people in here with major bias, -those saying 360 and those saying ps3, to be honest with you, the only real suggestion u should take right now are the people who say wait for the ps3 to come out and compare, and to take it a step further, u might also want to wait for the rev (i will never call is wii) to come out as well.

ur gunna see a lot of people in here with major bias, -those saying 360 and those saying ps3, to be honest with you, the only real suggestion u should take right now are the people who say wait for the ps3 to come out and compare, and to take it a step further, u might also want to wait for the rev (i will never call is wii) to come out as well.

You are pro Sony so your comment also shows major bias.

Edited by SecretAgentMan

You are pro Sony so your comment also shows major bias.

He may be pro Sony but his comment didn't show bias and probably makes the most sense out of everything. What's biased about waiting for all systems to be out then choosing by what the games look like??? It's a better strategy that argueing which console is more powerful or some other unknown.

If your a PC gamer and have the money to keep your system spec up to date i'd stick with the PC, especially now that Quad SLI is available. ;)

Yeah but Quad SLi is crap and will last a year at the longest. Multi-gpu video cards will be what makes a game truly next-gen and will make easier to make wonderful looking graphics then having 2 cards shoved on 1 PCi-E slot making it extremely easy to overheat and uses only partial power of each card. It was a failing technology from the start and will be dead very short from now.

The common sense says wait and see what the launch line-up for the PS3 is like, because remember each console has its contracts with certain publishing companies and will get very exclusive games and the PS3 will probably have more Japanese company contracts and the Xbox 360 with more western contracts which you will probably like more.

[/intelligence]

Ok berore I start I just gotta say im not a fanboy of either as im likely to feel the wrath of those who are lol

If you are a PC gamer, or anyone looking for a next gen console I would definatly go for the xbox 360. I wasn't going to as I didnt like the original xbox, but after playing a friends for a while I really feel Microsoft has got it right for once. There is a good stream of games getting released, Live is incredibly well integrated and its always nice to be able to download free demos on a console to try a game before buying. The controller is really nice to play with, it has a bit of a learning curve to get used to but once youve started using it you won't want to use anything else. Obviously for some games you can never beat the good old keyboard and mouse but it is really nice. I also love the fact, if needed, you can just plug the 360 controller into a pc's usb port and use it on there, also that I can plug my ipod into a controller (usb) port and play music straight off it :) ah the list goes on :)

Look for example at Oblivion. The xbox has only been out a few months and its producing lush graphics such as that, imagine what it'll be producing in another 6months time!

As for the PS3, I really feel Sony are now playing catch up. Imagine what crap must be going into it that people arn't seeing to complain about, I mean remember the boomerang controller they were going to use? its one of the few things sony has shown us and it caused an uproar, there must be more that they're hiding. Also there are alot of blogs in the web from people working on the ps3 complaining about it and how downhill its going. It's also been said, that with 6 months left till 'release' the kit is still 50%bigger than the case they're trying to get it all into, and has major overheating problems. Honestly it sounds to me Sony are in a mad rush trying to get this thing out the door, and they're going to make mistakes. Then again this may all be proved wrong upon release, it may be the best console ever, then again it doesnt look like it, we'll have to see.

Just my opinion, but Xbox is the way to go. There are a few people I know who have also got an Xbox 360 and now barely ever touch their pc for gaming. They were hardcore pc gamers so that says something :)

Just my opinion :)

Edited by randomnut

Personally I'll just say that it's probably not going to be worth waiting for the PS3. If you really want Blu-Ray support then go ahead, wait. But otherwise the PS3 is litterally getting the exact same features of the Xbox 360 (especially the online service part). You might as well buy a 360 for cheaper since most of the best games will be either for or ported to the 360 at one point or another anyway.

Based on the types of games you play I think you'd be happier with a 360 mainly because the PSX line tends to have a limited amount of "American" style games, which includes FPS (which it seems you play a lot of). You'll be surrounded by RPG games on the PS3.

Yeah but Quad SLi is crap and will last a year at the longest. Multi-gpu video cards will be what makes a game truly next-gen and will make easier to make wonderful looking graphics then having 2 cards shoved on 1 PCi-E slot making it extremely easy to overheat and uses only partial power of each card.

They use 2 seperate PCI-E slots... and thats dual SLI, quad SLI is 4.

Quad SLI

And i'm pretty sure that 4 beasty fans like that on the side of each one will stop it from overheating.

Edited by mikebeech

If you're a PC gamer and want a console to relax in front of your TV, and play non-PC games, get the Nintendo Wii. Cheapest system, cheapest games, completely PC-unlike system, lot's of original content. Both PS3 and Xbox360 are too PC-like, and most games are cross-platform anyway - everything looks pretty much the same and plays the same. Which means, you can with your your PC as well without missing much. So what's the point?

Well my 3D1 uses dual core's on one card (6600GT SLI) and its never had a problem with overheating...

I was saying that dual core gpus were good and Quad Sli is crap.

They use 2 seperate PCI-E slots... and thats dual SLI, quad SLI is 4.

Quad SLI

And i'm pretty sure that 4 beasty fans like that on the side of each one will stop it from overheating.

When it was first released it only used 2 PCi-E slots sorry for my brief moment of ignorance, but what Dell was using was crap. It still stands if you can put 4 of those cores on one video card and just have two of them its going to seem like having 8 cards and much better cooling manage without the extra space. My sentence still stands that its going to last a year at max.

Put it this way.... for ?209 you can buy an xbox, which is capable of playing oblivion on pretty much max settings. The game makes even top pc's sweat, please tell me where youll find an oblivion capable pc at that price? And the gfx are only going to get better! Total value for money

sorry, but you are wrong.

the PS3 will outperform anything you've ever seen before with the amazing new Cell processor technology, and the best GPU technology from Nvidia that will be able to deliver the amazing Unreal 3 engine at 1080p.

SOE makes me wonder but i think they will pick it up and go with it.

You're wrong...PS3 will have the ability to outperform X360, whether or or the s/w written for it will take it to that level is a different question altogether...parallelizing for 9 assymmetrical cores is mighty horrendous.

No, they will look better. If you compare the original Xbox games running on the xbox to running on the xbox360. just running it on a better system makes it look better. it may not be overwhelming but i know that in Halo 2 there is a pretty big difference between the two.

No software can run better than what they were designed for. XBOX games run beter on X360 bcoz XBOX 360 uses is higher horsepower to do AA which wasn't possible on XBOX.

the PS3 is litterally getting the exact same features of the Xbox 360 (especially the online service part).

I cant see sony ever matching the integration microsoft have with the 360 and xbox live.

have you ever read a review on sonys current online division :)

SOE suck ass and ruin games, and there services and customer support are crap

if SOE is any indication of the support for the PS3s online service i dont wanna touch it

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!