PS3 or high end computer

[Tomas of Hinckley]

i agree with the guy above who said it depends on what kind of games u play. If u like sports sims or driving games then ps3(or x box 360) is obvious choice if u like fps or statagty games like total war then go pc. id recomend a pc but not too "bleeding edge" ,get something that u can easily run the games u want to play on and then just sell your graphics card in a year or two and buy a knew one when your machine doesnt perform as you would like.

[Rush Limbaugh]

An intel Core 2 Duo E6700 is more than you need now . That along with an 8800GTX and your ready to go for under $1500 with everything. And you can always upgrade a pc.

[Thanatos]

Screw those options.

I go for option #3: Get more money and buy both.

[Mighty]

Screw those options.

I go for option #3: Get more money and buy both.

what a strange coincidence, I agree whole heartedly

[spartan_phalanx]

Actually the E6750 is $100 bucks cheaper. You still didn't mention your budget though? If you have enough money you can get both as has been mentioned. $1500 is more than enough for a solid PC, less if you overclock.

[sapi]

A Playstation is a lot less expensive than a high end PC. So I don't even understand the question here.

...until you factor in the need for a decent TV, if you don't already have one, at which point the PC becomes by far the cheaper option.

[Shazbot]

I agree with mango, get a 360.

[Zuwxiv]

You're gonna need 64 bit later, micro is no longer supporting 32 bit.

NOOOOOOOOO.

No.

I just put together a new computer recently, built it myself. Came to around $1100 or so, it will last me for a while and I can upgrade its slowest parts (video card, extra RAM) easily when I need to. I made a mistake though. I went with the 64 bit operating system, since my processor was 64 bit (Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 or something like that. A good deal for the money, can be overclocked if you want to.)

DON'T DO IT.

I can't sync my iPhone because it's not supported on 64 bit. I can't install half of my favorite games or play them because of the lack of 64 bit support. There are two program files files, one for x86 and the other for 64 bit which gets confusing as hell. There is very little gain and very few programs that use 64 bit support at all. The reason for this is that the vast majority of editions of Vista sold are the 32 bit ones - Microsoft did not push 64 bit computing at all for Vista.

I don't know where you heard that Microsoft is not supporting 32 bit; probably 90-95% of their versions of Vista sold are 32 bit. It's simply not true, if anything there is a lack of support for 64 bit.

Several years from now? Sure. Whatever is after Vista will probably use it. But for the next 2-3 years at least, 64 bit is a big liability and a pain in the butt.



Back on the topic, I'd go for the PC. The PS3 is actually not that good of a computer because of the hardware designs - people have difficulty getting it to run things like Windows XP because of a combination of hardware and software blocks. You can't simply use a PS3 as a computer. You can, but not simply.

Spend between $900-1200 on a new computer and it will last you a long time. I would suggest building it yourself - it generally is cheaper and actually isn't that difficult - but some online retailers have good offers too.

[maximusarian]

ok for cpu should I go for core 2 duo 6700 or quad core 6600??or just go with AMD??seriously I heard AMD better for gaming.is it true??and is more cores good for gaming??

[spartan_phalanx]

Sadly AMD just can't compete right now performance wise with Intel. If your looking in the E6700 range get the E6750, cheaper. Quad core is really not needed right now but there are a couple of games that are suppose to benefit from it. That's my 2 cents.

[sapi]

ok for cpu should I go for core 2 duo 6700 or quad core 6600??or just go with AMD??seriously I heard AMD better for gaming.is it true??and is more cores good for gaming??

The intel core 2 chips smash anything AMD has currently available.

Dual-core provides a small performance increase for gaming; quad core isn't worth it at this stage.

[numerosdecimus]

This can only be answered through a very complex answer. You should have in mind a lot of factors.

A console always gets outdated in it's system sooner or later, according to current expectations the gap between PC's and console will grow faster than expected, for the PC's advatange that is. Among these factors are the new technologies used such as the DirectX10. Consoles don't have this support.

Concerning hardware:

All consoles are already outdated in terms of graphical processing in some aspects. It's true that the 360 and PS3 have graphical technologies that won't appear in PC's graphics for about a year, however, in terms of everything else, especially the amount of information that can be processed per second, is really outdated.

Take for instance this: A X1800XTX can do aproximately 512Gflops per second, if you put two of them together through crossfire you'll have something close to a Teraflop of processing speed. A 360 does about 240Gflops per second and a PS3 does about 360Gflops per second. Have in mind that a X1800XTX isn't the top of line product now.

In terms of RAM, you have to look at it in a proportional way. 256MB and 512MB of RAM are A LOT for a console, this is because of the consoles bandwith and the overhaul structure itself as it was made for speciffic functions. I would say in erms of RAM the consoles aren't bad at all.

Processing power. You can't simply say that the 360 has a tri core chip that is weaker than a quad core chip available now in the market. You must also have in mind the hardware structure of the product. This means that the 360 and the Cell Chip have proportionally higher performance if you compare it to the performance of a generic PC. Of course that, still, the Cell Chip only has one of it's core for generic info processing.


HDD. I won't coment much here. As long as you get a substacial one for your console you won't have much problems, if any.

The console will certainly last substancially if you're looking for games which will rival with the PC and the versions that exist between the PC and 360 and PS3. However, recent games such as crysis are really an example of things that PC can only process, mostly because of graphical processing, which if something every console is already outdated. If they want to put crysis for the PS3 or the 360 then they better start simplifying the CryEngine2.

Both the 360 and PS3 will last substancially if not long, and they have one final advantage. If you have in mind their hardware performance when in comparison with current PCs and all the hardware pieces of the console itself, then you will realise that you are being given a powerfull machine for a lower price.

The thing is, as powerfull in terms of processing as they may be, sooner of later (most likely sooner), all of them will get outdated and the games you're playing on those console will suffer for it if you compare them with the PC versions of those games.

The PC has advantages that no otehr system has. If you're smart on the hardware choices you can have a pretty flexible range of option for updating the system and the simple fact that you can update the system, not to mention that if you do it right , then your updated system can hold on for a substancial amount of time or even a high amount (according to today's standards), thus making your buy a good investement as the money you spent will be well used.

Also, certain games will only work for the PC, if you're a TW fan or any strategy game fan (Starcraft 2, etc) then it's the PC all the way for you.

Take my example. Get a better PC and latter on get the console.

I bought my PS2 in 2006 when it cost around 130's €. And now I have a whole range of cool games, most of them for 14€ and some even for 9€.

I when I get the PS3 or the 360, most likely the next generation is already being presented and the PS3 and 360 will be in the final stages of their lifespam and already being considered obsulete.

[LeonidasOfSparta]

ok Im really confused now.should I buy a computer with quad cpu and 3 GB ram and good graphic card or just buy a ps3??

I already have a laptop and even if I buy a desktop it would only be for gaming.
will the gaming market of PC remain strong in future and new games come??
wich one has more benefits?
can I connect PS3 to a monitor??
can I go to internet with ps3 with wireless router system of my home?
thanks in advance

I suggeest cpu with 3GB OF RAM!!!!!! lol I have only 1GB or RAM

Leonidas

[Giorgos]

PC, no question about it.

If you are into modding and/or using mods, you can't go the console way.

That said, i wouldn't mind splashing for a 360 to go alongside my upgraded pc..

[Simetrical]

Grab vista, sure, but run 32bit - 64bit is a nightmare for gaming wrt driver support at the moment and not something I'd recommend.

Having tried out 64-bit Linux (since it was equally presented . . . too equally), I must wholeheartedly agree. I didn't even try running games, but for crying out loud, Flash doesn't work on 64-bit computers: you can't even browse the Web properly. 64-bit is only for servers at this point (although for servers it's the only reasonable choice).

I suggeest cpu with 3GB OF RAM!!!!!! lol I have only 1GB or RAM

CPUs don't have RAM. I have 3 GB of RAM at home and like it a lot. Don't know how much that third gig is getting me in terms of actual performance, but more often than not it's being fully used for disk cache. Probably you'd benefit even more, given Vista's preemptive caching.