Retro Tech 100: Thought you ment my real dog for a moment.... then realised you ment the GPU, It was so nice I left it in my system and forgot I wasn't using my R9 285. It was virtually silent aswell.
LOL I thought it was just my PC being buggy again. I'v been messing with modding a python script so I could have a 30 band system wide equalizer for all applications through PulseAudio. I'd grown to accept the occasional chop while still developing it so I completely overlooked that. XD
Actually the RSX of the PS3 was helped by the SPU in the CELL CPU, the SPU can be programmed like Shader on newer graphics card to perform CPU task for helping CPU or GPU task for helping GPU(what devs called pain in the ass to code). That why the PS3 Perform better. If Sony will have used FULL version of CELL on the PS4(Cell with 12 SPU instead 8) the PS4 will do far better than she can achieve now.
Zer01neDev: The Cell Architecture was no doubt an amazingly powerful one for its time, with performance that beat the Xbox 360... but alas the Xbox 360's ease to code for and amazing Scaled rendered it to have some of the best looking ports.... but exclusives wise the Ps3 did have some impressive titles.
I remember when my friend had the 512MB version this, while my pc had the mighty FX 5200. Imagine my reaction when I finally experienced Doom 3 running at 60 fps on ultra at 1280x1024, while I could barely average 15 fps @ 640x480.
tough to compare a PC version vs PS3 version of a game, considering there's more than just menu graphics settings that are tweaked for performance (like tweaked shadow settings, lighting, etc. or even lower poly models)
I distinctively remember seeing a man carrying around 2 of these cards on a bus one time about 2 years ago during college . My friend asked me what kind of gpus they were, to which I said they were definitely 7800GTXs, when we got home, he looked it up and was so surprised that I knew exactly what they were without any boxing or name titles anywhere lol
Weren't the 8000 series just rehashes of the 7000s? Or was that only one of the models? An 8000 series equivalent might be a fairer comparison to the PS3 RSX which was on a decently smaller die process than the 7800
@Budget-Builds Official, this is an excellent video which offers great information for historical reference on PC vs Console hardware. I would also like to add that many PS3 games ran below 720P down to as low as 540P in order to keep frame rates stable they would then upscale to 720P or 1080P to give the impression of better graphics. Similar to how PS4 Pro is using checkerboard rendering to fake 4K imagining but not nearly as advanced.
Here's a fun one: the PS3 SDK only allowed access to horizontal scaling on the integrated hardware scaler. You'll find a number of titles that have two rendering resolution; 1280*720 when the PS3 is outputing a 720P signal, or 960*1080 for 1080P output with the hardware scaler handling the conversion from 960 horizontal res to 1920. Plenty of titles utilized various lowered resolutions to improve overall performance consistency in later shooters and the like. Especially later in the console's life many rendering and upscaling tricks became key to improving the visual fidelity on the hardware as it became so dated. One of the biggest changes the 8th gen consoles gave us on both the PS4 and Xbox One was the move to unified system and video memory, and an absolutely massive jump in capacity. Finally enough breathing room to deliver a massive fidelity increase to textures, and just a much easier time handling those clever tricks to wring out more performance now that just being able to fit everything you wanted in that tiny framebuffer wasn't the primary bottleneck. Also can we just sit back in amazement at just how much performance devs squeezed out of those 7th Gen consoles as they were on their way out? The fact games like GTA V ran as well as they did looking that good is a technical marvel that required almost every trick in the book.
I wouldn't say that, I mean on paper the PS3 gpu looks a bit stronger but it is a proprietary vs aftermarket. I was just curious because there was only 50 or so mhz between the clock speeds, which should be a fairly achievable overclock for the 7800.
ps3's don't have throttling. The reason the games like the last of us and God of war 3 look so much better than what the pc can produce with similar hardware, is that many of these games do lots of graphical work on the CPU to help free up the gpu. its difficult to do, but the top developers have worked wonders.
in 2007 there was 8800 which was a really huge leap over 7800 gtx. 7800 gtx is not that bad but compared to 8000 series it was low -mid range card. That was my personal experience maybe i am wrong because memories are fading, but 7800 gtx was something like worst 8600
7 років тому+42
Remember that the current Half Life 2 version on steam runs on the Source 24 engine, which is completely unsuitable for running on hardware available at the game's launch, there are torrents that still have the game running on the original Source 7 version.
the ps3 and xbox 360 recived the patched half life 2 with HDR before the PC get it , valve choosed tha way because to move more half life 2 copies (PC almost full of sales in that game if you see it that way), later in months source 24 was gold in pc for free
The PS3 and X360 versions runs on Source 2007 engine, and on PC, only EP2 did run on Source 2007. Valve later updated HL2 and EP1 to Source 2009 in 2010 (at the same time with HL2 Mac port released). Later it was upgraded again in 2013, running on Source 2013 (protocol 24).
I always love the Source Engine because of how optimised it is to older and underpowered systems, I can run Portal 2 (little bit more advanced in graphics compared to Half-Life 2) at around 30 fps on low/medium settings on my Intel HD Graphics card.
Need for speed ran flawlessly on my ps3 and I clean it regularly trying to keep it in good shape I have the middle of the line ps3 so not the fat but not the super slim ... Changing the thermal paste really helped quiet it down before the fans used to ramp up quickly on gta v. I just can’t believe that my ps3 has lasted as long as it has graphics can’t compare to a gtx 1070 but it sure plays old titles really well
vulcan is exactly this, trying to bring the console optimisationability (is that a word?) to the pc. consoles have much better driver optimizations plus its a unique system so they can avoid assuming stuff and just optimize for said hardware without having to target "the one that works better for the mayority"
You are missing the fact that BOTH Skyrim and Crysis on PS3 - while they may be PLAYING at 720p the internal render resolution is often just 50% to 80% of that at best! This is the *Console Optimization* you are speaking of. Same deal with CURRENT gen consoles, while they may render some games at 1080p they have adaptive quality settings of a LARGE variety! They change render resolution on the fly and can EVEN do it to just SPECIFIC parts of the screen or "Assets" such that an NPC Character WAY off in the distance, instead of being rendered at the full 1080p or whatever the NATIVE OUTPUT resolution is (the res that shows up on your monitor or recording software) - assets that are already so far away that they are blurry can have their render resolution lowered IN REAL TIME! This stuff is RARE for PC games, especially modern ones, as there are COUNTLESS GPUs and CPUs such as even just an i3-2100 are enough to game at 1080p 60 fps at high/ultra setting on a GPU as low power and cheap as a GTX 1050 Ti o if you can stretch you budget a LITTLE more, an RX 470/570 at their MSRP of ~$190 cannot be beat in gaming Price/performance for 1080p! But the GTX 1060 3 GB is a good alternative, which will trade blows with the RX 470/570. Or if you go Second hand on eBay you can score even a GTX 980 for around $150!
I mean in Crysis it is plain as day the DETAILS were nowhere NEAR the full 720p! The numbers on the HUD are so damned blurry that they are damned near UNREADABLE! That is because it is being RENDERED at ~500p!
DysphoricSmile what you just described are called LOD's and mipmapping and PC games do make use of that. However you won't really ever notice it as much because PC's can afford it to draw those further away from the player. Mipmapping can even be turned off from a certain graphical setting onward since they're mostly rendered in real time instead of pre-created within the original texture nowadays.
It's worth pointing out that for a lot of later games, (roughly Uncharted 1 onwards), the CELL was used for graphics processing as that was originally how the system was intended to run and it produced much better results than the reality synthesiser. So some games may look better on the PS3 compared to using the PC's graphics card counterpart, but that is due to the fact that the CELL was designed to do both processing and graphics processing and do it to such a high level at the time.
The PS3 was originally not mean to use a GPU. The Cell architecture was so revolutionary that it was to use the 8 simplified cores for texture filtering, vertex shading, pixel shading and so on. The problem with this plan is that the cell was delayed and delayed and delayed and would have ended up with something with the power of a geforce 2 or whatever many years after it was at all relevant.
Not sure how you calculated 400Gflops for the RSX. Gflops = ALUs * clock in GHz * operations per core per clock, in this case 24 * 500 * 2. RSX would be around 240. The 400 came from Sony marketing back then, adding the CPU and GPU flops. Bandwidth and ROPs were also cut down from the 7800 to 7600 levels, so it was a hybrid between them.
This hardware blew my mind considering what it had to offer and what it delivered. Guys for heaven sake, buy this from anywhere u get, just the feeling that I have it makes me so so happy.
The PS3 GPU is quite similar to the 7800GTX but the RSX is optimized for gaming only (other stuff to) the 7800GTX too, but not like the RSX. The clocks are higher aswell. But I think you could call that a PS3 GPU, also I would try to go with the 8800GTX! Well done Video! Love all your videos and watched all of them! ;)
I mean, yeah the 7800GTX variant used on the PS3 was often helped by the CPU. The PS3 wasn't supposed to have a GPU at all, they added that 7800GTX very late in dev. Basically in some of the more pushing games for the system, the GPU was helped a lot by the CPU, that explains why the PS3 ended up pushing big titles like The Last of Us.
@@dxfvgyhjh You know that high end graphics cards from 2005 had 512MBs and 256MBs of VRAM Not to mention how a PC with only 256MBs of System RAM can only handle GTA San Andreas
Nope, the problem is that the RAM wasn´t unified. if they can`t unified it well they should have increased to 384MB Consoles doesn´t need much RAM as PCs, i mean try to run Battlefield 3 with only 512MB of RAM Battlefield 3 PC minimum: 2GBs of RAM with 512MB of video RAM Xbox 360: Unified 512MB of RAM You know? Xbox 360 was supposed to have unified 256MB of RAM, but Epic Games conviced MS to increased it to 512MB for Gears of Wars 1
Nice. Now if you can do a Windows OS burden video showing how much system resources each version of windows uses on the same systems. As an example Win 10 with lots of GB's HDD space, does not do a whole lot more than windows 95 with its 45MB install.
If you used wikipedia for the 400Gflops, it's wrong, people are still editing it to be higher a decade later lol. 400 was what Sony advertised combining the CPU and GPU Gflops. RSX was around half of the total. Shader cores * clock speed * 2 is the equation for GPU Gflops on paper. Even adding in the vertex shaders it was not near 400. Nvidia back then, to counter ATI+Microsoft on paper, counted multiple operations issued with one instruction as Operations / sec, while everyone else did not.
Great video, however we should not forget a one important thing in the PS3 which is the CELL cpu. The cpu was calculating a pretty big part of the graphics, and thx to the flex system they were able to use each other's memory if i am right. So even though if the gpu is similar like 7800GTX it never will match with PC configuration.
Great video As always. They are both similar on paper but damn, console optimization. But, since console is locked at 30, i don't care. Also you can't play Quake III on your PS3 so I'd much rather have the 7800GTX
DX9 overhead is much greater than what Sony's API uses that's why it works so much better on the PS3. In fact, all of our PCs would work a billion times better if we didn't have the overhead (hence why Vulkan is made in the first place). We could play Quake 3 on our PS3s if Sony didn't cockblock Linux as well as if we had a proper driver for the RSX. OpenArena runs like crap on software on PS3 :/
here's the thing with dx12 and vulkan, they're not doing shit with it and not only that, in some games, turning on dx12 makes the game run worse. Both Vulkan and dx12 turned out to be duds. These game developers are too cheap to pay their programmers to make proper use of these APIs. And the handful of games that do use these APIs, don't count. Also, all of these new multicore processors are useless unless you use them for productivity. The way I see it, I don't think game developers will catch up to hardware......greed is a bitch.
I know I'm late here, but why even bother making the comparison knowing they are different engines? You would have been better off comparing Crysis 2 performance.
HAL: www.techopedia.com/definition/4288/hardware-abstraction-layer-hal Windows is quite layered, so there are all of these steps that the software has to go through in order to talk to the hardware. This is done for security reasons for the most part. DirectX 12, for example, decreased the amount of abstraction layers from previous implementations of DirectX. This process is known in the tech community as "getting closer to metal". Well, console titles are programmed using near ISA (homedir.jct.ac.il/~citron/ca/isa.html) so the software talks almost directly to the hardware skipping a bunch of latency and delays imposed by abstraction layers. Less latency means a lower render time on a per frame basis which results in a higher amount of frames being delivered per second. AMD explains this process here while explaining Asynchronous compute : www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/fotostrecken/artikel-galerien/amd-asynchronous-shaders/amd-asynchronous-shader-20f7dd1f.html. Each one of those tasks listed there are to occur for a single frame. Many of them require the CPU or Memory or some other part of the system to communicate with the GPU. Sometimes to load up textures, other times for memory fetches and whatnot. Point being that each one of those tasks takes longer on a PC when compared to a console as there are more layers the GPU or CPU or Memory have to go through in order to talk to one another on PCs. So it's not really about optimizations, those do play a role in that being able to talk to the hardware in near ISA means that you can optimize for certain GPU features not being taken advantage of by the current Direct X instruction set, but mostly about lowering the render time on a per frame basis resulting in a much higher frame rate by simply cutting out middle Men imposed by the Operating System and other abstraction layers such as the API itself (DirectX in this case). This is why consoles tend to perform so well when compared to the hardware they have under the hood.
HL2 on PS3 is a gimped version, the x360 runs and looks a lot better. Crysis is different and shouldn't be compared. The reason it uses Cryengine 3 instead of 2 was because the console couldn't work with that engine, it wasn't able to scale all the way to back. Crysis on consoles is a mixed bag, since it removed graphical features while adding newer graphical features.
Note:That low performance on the nvidia is because of the operating system;if it were to be as light and optimized for gaming as the os on console,they would be the same.This issue is fixable by modifying windows or installing one of those ''lite'' windows versions from dodgy sites.It is not fair to compare it with any consoles performance.
The Xbox 360 was a real beast back in 2005, Xenos GPU had UNIFIED SHADERS which made it a superior to the PS3's RSX which had separate vertex and pixel shader pipelines. PS3 got saved by the CELL but it was so hard to program that only Sony first party studios actually fully used the system as intended. Sony should have waited 1 more year and maybe ship the PS3 with double the RAM, faster bluray(ps3 has 2x) and a better GPU that had unified shaders. Have to say the 360/PS3 generation was freaking amazing because both consoles had better specs than most high end gaming PCs. The 360 Xenos GPU was based on the Radeon X1800 XT which cost 500 bucks in 2005! In 2013 when the Xbox One/PS4 came out their specs where akin to medium range PCs, if they had GPUs that cost what the 360/PS3 had back in the day then the Ps4/Xbox One would have had 4 teraflops!!! but they didn't and both consoles had around 1 teraflops in their vanilla 2013 before they mid upgrade (easiest way to explain)
Many last gen console games run in sub hd resolutions and the image is then upscaled to 720p/1080p. Also, even though they target 30fps most of the time, they don't hit that target all of the time. I've heard pretty bad things about the ps3 versions of Half Life and Skyrim, though I haven't played them myself. As for Far Cry, the engine was heavily modified so it could actually run properly on consoles and it still doesn't run all that well. But, yeah. I'd probably pick the ps3 over a pc with a 10-year-old gpu.
The CPU plays a part in it as well, x86 and Cell are widely different, but I can't tell if that would skew the results apart from giving the GTX a little boost from using a modern CPU. You should try comparing the Wii U to its rumoured equivalents: HD 6450 (160 shaders), HD 4670 (320 shaders) and HD 8470D iGPU (192 shaders). Great interesting video! I love seeing console hardware and what it's based on.
is it just me, or does the Crysis' PC footage NOT run on actual Medium settings? Looks more like all-Low. Not to mention the console port of Crysis have a lot of assets and stuff literally removed to make it run better.
Nice comparison and I understand that this is the main focus of the channel. However one is a gpu and one is a console with a bunch of hardware coming together under the control of the developer. Really, this is the only generation of game consoles that can be fairly compared to pc counterparts (or parts you can get over the counter *wink *wink) due to the design of the hardware but also the development of video games in general nowdays.
Just to clarify, I meant comparing the PS3 to a PC through comparing the GPU is largely irrelevant. The cell processor is so special, it is incredibly hard to emulate on a PC, although I think there is some steady progress on that front. But I miss some PS3 exclusive titles. :(
Come on... they really aren't playable for 90% of gamers, you need an absolute monster of a pc to run demons souls - thats before all the horrible glitches and broken audio. it's easier to just get an old ps3 at the moment.
Ran 7800 GTX's in SLI paired with a FX-60 in my rig until the 7900GT came out. Swapped over to a pair and my son scored some 7800 GTX SLI goodness along with an Athlon 64 X2 4000+
That ps3 kicked in power for a while, even compared to that time high end pcs. Too bad PS4 cant be said it does the same, they should have stayed with Cell processor to develop further.
PlayerOne Cell was a mistake. Too expensive for R&D and x86 surpassed it. The problem with PS4 and Xbone is they use a slow 8 core AMD CPU based on 2012 tech. They're probably locked into the contract too with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X using the same damn processor.
Thats why i said to develop further, it was first time anyone have ever worked with Cell CPU, and i bet Sony and DEVs learned a lot about it and it could have improoved a ton for 2nd gen Cell. I see it as a waste to kill it so soon.
Louis Monroe As far as we know, Xbox One X CPU is a refresh of Jaguar, which is what was used on PS4/Pro and Xbox One. Until we know for sure, but I highly doubt they changed CPUs, too expensive. There's also no way they chose a Ryzen CPU too :/
PlayerOne It would have been a waste for consoles though, perhaps not for a super computers. Most developers know x86. A lot of developers don't want to develop for anything else because it costs time and time is money. A large reason the 360 held a long lead and had more 3rd party support and limited exclusives is because the CPU was easier to code for than Cell. Using cell again would have been a disaster for Sony for the PS4. x86 was a safe call, they couldn't risk another "PS3 Launch"
An updated cell using Power ISA v.2.06 or later would have been much faster but I'm not sure if they could could have sold it at a the same price point as the AMD based system. One issue they had with Cell it was difficult for some developers to write code for and they ended up making lazy ports that only used the PPU though more skilled developers were able to fully take advantage of the SPUs.
I can't believe Sony released the RSX based on the Geforce 7 which lacked unified shaders. In hindsight Sony should have delayed the PS3 to late 2007 and worked with Nvidia to use a Geforce 8 GPU as the basis for the RSX. What a huge mistake. Maybe Sony could have added more RAM as well and this should have propelled the PS3 past the Xbox 360
It doesn´t matter, as the PS2 got games in 2005 with only 4MB Video RAM Consoles doesn´t need much RAM as PC, i mean try to run Far Cry 3 with only 512MB RAM The only thing that PS3 needed was unified memory RAM, the powerful CPU would always make up the weak GPU in gaming
While the Xbox 360 and PS3 may had 512MB of RAM, the PC version requires 2GBs or more to run the same games Well to be fair PC is running more than just the game. They run it with with gargantuan program (Windows, Linux, etc.) and background applications
If heat was such a concern you would redo the thermal paste and perhaps invest into a $20 cpu cooler that will improve cooling over the stock heatsink. Plus it isn't hard to own 4GB, 6GB or for the odd occasion you really need it, 8GB of RAM for your computer
Not particularly - I mean technically, yes, but that's accounted for in the chip's TDP. That means a 65W chip will output 65W of heat or less, regardless if the iGPU is used. To add further, due the compact design of consoles (also true for laptops), they use the same heatsink to dissipate heat from both the CPU and GPU, so you're going to have the same problem with a console - the graphics will make the CPU run hotter. Also, when a system with an HD 530 really wouldn't come with less than 4GB of RAM, which is far more than what the PS3 had, which was 256MB. Very moot points.
Hilariously when I said the Xbox 360/PS3 were ahead of their time in terms of performance when they came out some person told me they weren't. That was like 5 years ago or something and I didn't know enough about old computer hardware back then to attempt to argue with him.
PS3 has 256 MB VRAM and 256 MB system ram. Xbox 360 has 512 MB shared ram, similar to modern APUs or current-gen consoles, Xbox One and Playstation 4. The shared pool of ram is one of the reasons most games ran/looked better on X360 than PS3 and why current-gen consoles also went with shared ram.
Nice review, but you are comparing it with a card that was release a year before the PS3. By the time the PS3 was released The 8800gtx was already out. So if you want a fair comparison you should compare it to that card instead. And since 8800gtx has almost double the performance of a 7800gtx at ebay price of $15 today, its really a no contest.
Geo Zefy i build a cheap gaming pc with Intel i3 6100 + GTX 1050. Every modern game ran fine in middle-high. Except Mirror's Edge Catalyst (it needs 4 physical Cores) so that game in low ran at 25fps hahahaha. But for rocket league, leqgue of legends, PUBG, fortnite, Rise of the tomb raider in middle And other Games is very fine~ the client is happy with the pc. It costed 330 USD aprox
I used a 7900 GTX last year in the winter when preparing to make my first gaming rig. It played Crysis on medium with no trouble. It's a really good card. I loved my PS3 as well and sadly it died to cockroach infestation and a new cat marking it, but it was interesting to learn where the graphics came from.
King Of You All Gamer bmx guy no. It has a range of clocks that ot wont go over. During development its hard locked into the system to never excede xxx mhz because doing so would cost more power and efficiency. Overclocking is a pc only feature because how many warranties do you thing would be voided if everyone could overclock a console?
+kingryan920 Kingryan920 You need to softhack the PS3 to overclock it and only then it wont run the games any nicer or in higher fps it will only prevent games from dipping below 30fps or 60fps for those rare titles that has it.
could you say if this build is good i have a pc with these specs core i3 7100 corsair 4gbs ram 2133 ghz 450w psu and asus mobo h110-k and this is the upgrade say if its good btw im 13 pcpartpicker.com/list/TktktJ
Bear in mind that the consoles were /upscaled/ to 720p, you can bet things would look a lot crisper if those consoles actually rendered at native 720p.
Revantu Yuizanche uhm, some do run at native 720p... 720p (interlaced) was already achieved in the PS2 era although not many games ran at that resolution.
Oh, true, I didn't mean to say that literally all games were upscaled. Mostly the graphically demanding and fast-paced FPS ones. For instance, I recall that Modern Warfare 2 was rendered at a resolution sub 480p and upscaled to 720p, and that isn't even a demanding game.
Performance would be closer between the 7900GTX and the PS3 than the 7800GTX, since the G71 chips were born of the modifications made to the PS3's version of the G70.
I think people don't realize how cheapely they can make a gaming PC. I mean, I have a GTX 1060 and a I7 7700K and they definitly help me to reach great gaming comfort but for 100 bucks you can definitly make a nice PC that can run Next Gen games on low or even medium if you don't mind having your framerate capped. Console players always say that gaming on PC is expensive, which is only true if you wish to get throught the roof performance, but to get the same experience you'e get on console, you can get it for cheap.
The 7900 GT and 7900 GTX were both built on the 90nm process unlike the 7800 GTX's 110nm. I feel like they would have been better choices to compare. The 7900 GT in particular has 256mb of VRAM and CPU and Memory clocks of 450 and 660 respectively, a bit closer to the PS3's chip overall than the 7800 GTX is. The 7900 GTX on the other hand is a bit more like a next step up and is what I use in an old XP build I put together to play games like Doom 3 and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory on an old CRT monitor. It's got a 650Mhz CPU clock and 512mb of Memory at 800Mhz. I know they say the PS3 is based on the G70 which is what the 7800 is, while the 7900 is G71, but really a G70 die shrunk to 90nm is so similar to a G71 I don't think it matters much. The G71 is specifically said to be a product refresh of the previous line and not really any new tech beyond the die shrink and clock increases.
@@dexthegamer3234 Which was still 6 months before the PS3. Seems to me they were finally getting the production lines needed for the tech they developed for the PS3 and also used it in the 7900 refresh.
i had some parts in my shop and i decided to build a gaming pc bcoz i still play ps3 version games in pc those were dualcore 2.2ghz with asrock mobo and 4gb rams with msi 9800gtx 512mb and im glad that it runs games like a charm in 60 fps and place it along side of my ryzen machine for old or semi modern games
It just gos too show what I good developer can do with the hardware given to them. I was shocked at the Uncharteds and Last OF Us and GTA5 how like how they pull that off on the PS3 amazing.
I used a very similar performance card, the 8600GT until 2013. Just goes to show how much those old consoles held progress back. That 8600 should have been obsolete in a year.
Theres life in the old dog yet? Another great video.
Retro Tech 100: Thought you ment my real dog for a moment.... then realised you ment the GPU, It was so nice I left it in my system and forgot I wasn't using my R9 285. It was virtually silent aswell.
Retro Tech 100 I love your videos dude
Thanks Wong Wong
Retro Tech 100 you better hide that fu(£ing graphics card before the miners come for it.....
i have a ps3 as an backup gaming system
Wow a 7800GTX, that's way higher than a GTX 1080!
are u high
@@ZeroDefz it's a joke
@@blazegamez4159 oh no i thought it was a plane
@@ZeroDefz ua-cam.com/video/MxbOEiJ-eUw/v-deo.html
Must be 7 times as good
1:52 devevevelepers?
LOL I thought it was just my PC being buggy again. I'v been messing with modding a python script so I could have a 30 band system wide equalizer for all applications through PulseAudio. I'd grown to accept the occasional chop while still developing it so I completely overlooked that. XD
captions reveal that they are elephants
My adhd ass didn't even notice lol
Hahahahaha thank you
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!
And that 256mb vram can play GTA V????
And that 256mb vram can play Crysis 3 , Far cry 3 & 4 , Tomb Raider , Watch Dogs , Call of Duty Games at 60fps , Fighting games at 60fps .
God's GPU :v
Ps3 is a damn beauty
It's the before next gen release though, so just call it gta V 1.0 ;)
Both the PS4/XBONE and PC version are gta V 2.0 (next gen).
Mark Jacobs
Its 1.22 not 1.0. Dumb
Actually the RSX of the PS3 was helped by the SPU in the CELL CPU, the SPU can be programmed like Shader on newer graphics card to perform CPU task for helping CPU or GPU task for helping GPU(what devs called pain in the ass to code).
That why the PS3 Perform better.
If Sony will have used FULL version of CELL on the PS4(Cell with 12 SPU instead 8) the PS4 will do far better than she can achieve now.
Zer01neDev: The Cell Architecture was no doubt an amazingly powerful one for its time, with performance that beat the Xbox 360... but alas the Xbox 360's ease to code for and amazing Scaled rendered it to have some of the best looking ports.... but exclusives wise the Ps3 did have some impressive titles.
Actually Beyond Two Souls and The last of Us also Uncharted 3 show what the PS3 can done and it was really impressive.
Zer01neDev: Some of the best examples you could give :D
When i actually see the rendering of the Uncharted 3 sand or beyond two souls cloth/light i'am just "WoW does this is perform on a 2005 hardware ?"
Zer01neDev world of Warcraft doesn't give answers. only questions.
I remember when my friend had the 512MB version this, while my pc had the mighty FX 5200. Imagine my reaction when I finally experienced Doom 3 running at 60 fps on ultra at 1280x1024, while I could barely average 15 fps @ 640x480.
The PS3 also had a lot of help from the Cell when it came to graphics and effects, that is why the rather anemic GPU could do impressive things.
tough to compare a PC version vs PS3 version of a game, considering there's more than just menu graphics settings that are tweaked for performance (like tweaked shadow settings, lighting, etc. or even lower poly models)
I distinctively remember seeing a man carrying around 2 of these cards on a bus one time about 2 years ago during college . My friend asked me what kind of gpus they were, to which I said they were definitely 7800GTXs, when we got home, he looked it up and was so surprised that I knew exactly what they were without any boxing or name titles anywhere lol
Weren't the 8000 series just rehashes of the 7000s? Or was that only one of the models? An 8000 series equivalent might be a fairer comparison to the PS3 RSX which was on a decently smaller die process than the 7800
@Budget-Builds Official, this is an excellent video which offers great information for historical reference on PC vs Console hardware. I would also like to add that many PS3 games ran below 720P down to as low as 540P in order to keep frame rates stable they would then upscale to 720P or 1080P to give the impression of better graphics. Similar to how PS4 Pro is using checkerboard rendering to fake 4K imagining but not nearly as advanced.
jiggie2g true that
Source?
Psdevwiki?
Sony?
Epic?
Leaked sce docs?
I must agree you, I still have a PS3 and many games don't even look close to 720p resolution.
Dragons Dogma on PS3. I love that game but thank god it got a PC release bexause that was one ugly ass game on the PS3.
Here's a fun one: the PS3 SDK only allowed access to horizontal scaling on the integrated hardware scaler. You'll find a number of titles that have two rendering resolution; 1280*720 when the PS3 is outputing a 720P signal, or 960*1080 for 1080P output with the hardware scaler handling the conversion from 960 horizontal res to 1920.
Plenty of titles utilized various lowered resolutions to improve overall performance consistency in later shooters and the like. Especially later in the console's life many rendering and upscaling tricks became key to improving the visual fidelity on the hardware as it became so dated.
One of the biggest changes the 8th gen consoles gave us on both the PS4 and Xbox One was the move to unified system and video memory, and an absolutely massive jump in capacity. Finally enough breathing room to deliver a massive fidelity increase to textures, and just a much easier time handling those clever tricks to wring out more performance now that just being able to fit everything you wanted in that tiny framebuffer wasn't the primary bottleneck.
Also can we just sit back in amazement at just how much performance devs squeezed out of those 7th Gen consoles as they were on their way out? The fact games like GTA V ran as well as they did looking that good is a technical marvel that required almost every trick in the book.
Did you try to overclock the 7800GTX to match the PS3 speeds?
Retro Adventure that's what I thought too. The GPU card he had was much worse than the PS3 gpu
I wouldn't say that, I mean on paper the PS3 gpu looks a bit stronger but it is a proprietary vs aftermarket. I was just curious because there was only 50 or so mhz between the clock speeds, which should be a fairly achievable overclock for the 7800.
gotta take into account the throttling on ps3 cpu lol most of em get hot as fuck especially the fat ones
ps3's don't have throttling.
The reason the games like the last of us and God of war 3 look so much better than what the pc can produce with similar hardware, is that many of these games do lots of graphical work on the CPU to help free up the gpu.
its difficult to do, but the top developers have worked wonders.
PS3 I had throttled like crazy.
This was the first card I ever bought with my own money back in 2007, it made games of the time run amazing, at least in my mind they did... lol
in 2007 there was 8800 which was a really huge leap over 7800 gtx. 7800 gtx is not that bad but compared to 8000 series it was low -mid range card. That was my personal experience maybe i am wrong because memories are fading, but 7800 gtx was something like worst 8600
Remember that the current Half Life 2 version on steam runs on the Source 24 engine, which is completely unsuitable for running on hardware available at the game's launch, there are torrents that still have the game running on the original Source 7 version.
the ps3 and xbox 360 recived the patched half life 2 with HDR before the PC get it , valve choosed tha way because to move more half life 2 copies (PC almost full of sales in that game if you see it that way), later in months source 24 was gold in pc for free
The PS3 and X360 versions runs on Source 2007 engine, and on PC, only EP2 did run on Source 2007. Valve later updated HL2 and EP1 to Source 2009 in 2010 (at the same time with HL2 Mac port released). Later it was upgraded again in 2013, running on Source 2013 (protocol 24).
who keeps putting all these GPUs in your garden
@Bear Omega because games are more optimised for the ps3
That Sims 2 background music though :D
An amazing soundtrack
Emanuel Vitorino
I thought that was squidward's dope beat. Just me? Meh.
F4Y541 it is in the middle of the video lmao
1:01 Ill give you a like just because of the sims 2 backround music
"Hello Kelpy g?"
"Kelpy g machine fixed"
"ASENDED"
This comment is from 7 years ago, Jesus i feel ancient
Kelpy G sold me on this video (And of course the benchmarks haha)
Subbed :)
I always love the Source Engine because of how optimised it is to older and underpowered systems, I can run Portal 2 (little bit more advanced in graphics compared to Half-Life 2) at around 30 fps on low/medium settings on my Intel HD Graphics card.
I love your use of the vibrophone in your videos. It's one my favourite instruments.
0:36 doggo pushes PS3
Need for speed ran flawlessly on my ps3 and I clean it regularly trying to keep it in good shape I have the middle of the line ps3 so not the fat but not the super slim ... Changing the thermal paste really helped quiet it down before the fans used to ramp up quickly on gta v. I just can’t believe that my ps3 has lasted as long as it has graphics can’t compare to a gtx 1070 but it sure plays old titles really well
vulcan is exactly this, trying to bring the console optimisationability (is that a word?) to the pc.
consoles have much better driver optimizations plus its a unique system so they can avoid assuming stuff and just optimize for said hardware without having to target "the one that works better for the mayority"
Your RSX “Reality” is so adorable! 0:31
You are missing the fact that BOTH Skyrim and Crysis on PS3 - while they may be PLAYING at 720p the internal render resolution is often just 50% to 80% of that at best! This is the *Console Optimization* you are speaking of.
Same deal with CURRENT gen consoles, while they may render some games at 1080p they have adaptive quality settings of a LARGE variety! They change render resolution on the fly and can EVEN do it to just SPECIFIC parts of the screen or "Assets" such that an NPC Character WAY off in the distance, instead of being rendered at the full 1080p or whatever the NATIVE OUTPUT resolution is (the res that shows up on your monitor or recording software) - assets that are already so far away that they are blurry can have their render resolution lowered IN REAL TIME!
This stuff is RARE for PC games, especially modern ones, as there are COUNTLESS GPUs and CPUs such as even just an i3-2100 are enough to game at 1080p 60 fps at high/ultra setting on a GPU as low power and cheap as a GTX 1050 Ti o if you can stretch you budget a LITTLE more, an RX 470/570 at their MSRP of ~$190 cannot be beat in gaming Price/performance for 1080p! But the GTX 1060 3 GB is a good alternative, which will trade blows with the RX 470/570. Or if you go Second hand on eBay you can score even a GTX 980 for around $150!
I mean in Crysis it is plain as day the DETAILS were nowhere NEAR the full 720p! The numbers on the HUD are so damned blurry that they are damned near UNREADABLE! That is because it is being RENDERED at ~500p!
DysphoricSmile what you just described are called LOD's and mipmapping and PC games do make use of that. However you won't really ever notice it as much because PC's can afford it to draw those further away from the player. Mipmapping can even be turned off from a certain graphical setting onward since they're mostly rendered in real time instead of pre-created within the original texture nowadays.
Optimization is highly underrated.
DysphoricSmile there are a fuckton of scam 980s on ebay...
most ps3 games do not dynamically render. they were in 720p or 1080p
literally, i think 1 game does it, and that's rage
It's worth pointing out that for a lot of later games, (roughly Uncharted 1 onwards), the CELL was used for graphics processing as that was originally how the system was intended to run and it produced much better results than the reality synthesiser. So some games may look better on the PS3 compared to using the PC's graphics card counterpart, but that is due to the fact that the CELL was designed to do both processing and graphics processing and do it to such a high level at the time.
When the video started I wasn't sure if it was cgi
maybe cuz ur dummmm :)))))) ???
Gamefreak924 no you are, for misspelling words, and ruining emoticons.
Same
fell in love with your channel over the last 2 hours
30fps in cs:go is not "raw graphical horse power" lol. On board graphics can get more than that.
But consoles are designed to achieve 30 FPS :D
true. it's even worse than radeon r2 graphics
BKsniperguy no
@@sory234 I have a laptop with R2, I get 45
The PS3 was originally not mean to use a GPU. The Cell architecture was so revolutionary that it was to use the 8 simplified cores for texture filtering, vertex shading, pixel shading and so on.
The problem with this plan is that the cell was delayed and delayed and delayed and would have ended up with something with the power of a geforce 2 or whatever many years after it was at all relevant.
Not sure how you calculated 400Gflops for the RSX. Gflops = ALUs * clock in GHz * operations per core per clock, in this case 24 * 500 * 2. RSX would be around 240. The 400 came from Sony marketing back then, adding the CPU and GPU flops. Bandwidth and ROPs were also cut down from the 7800 to 7600 levels, so it was a hybrid between them.
This hardware blew my mind considering what it had to offer and what it delivered.
Guys for heaven sake, buy this from anywhere u get, just the feeling that I have it makes me so so happy.
The PS3 GPU is quite similar to the 7800GTX but the RSX is optimized for gaming only (other stuff to) the 7800GTX too, but not like the RSX. The clocks are higher aswell. But I think you could call that a PS3 GPU, also I would try to go with the 8800GTX! Well done Video! Love all your videos and watched all of them! ;)
Slayx: Thanks man, tried something new, expect more polish, thanks for sticking round :D
Budget-Builds Official I will start this week with a new channel, will be similar to yours. is that ok?
Slayx: Yeah that's chill, go for it
I mean, yeah the 7800GTX variant used on the PS3 was often helped by the CPU. The PS3 wasn't supposed to have a GPU at all, they added that 7800GTX very late in dev. Basically in some of the more pushing games for the system, the GPU was helped a lot by the CPU, that explains why the PS3 ended up pushing big titles like The Last of Us.
That 256 mb ram and 256 mb vram runs GTA 5...!!!
yes how is that possible???
@Patrick Rapan nope not even close
@@dxfvgyhjh You know that high end graphics cards from 2005 had 512MBs and 256MBs of VRAM
Not to mention how a PC with only 256MBs of System RAM can only handle GTA San Andreas
That Sims 2 background music, love it.
I wish Sony had doubled the main ram and video ram of the PS3 to 512MB each.
Nope, the problem is that the RAM wasn´t unified. if they can`t unified it well they should have increased to 384MB
Consoles doesn´t need much RAM as PCs, i mean try to run Battlefield 3 with only 512MB of RAM
Battlefield 3 PC minimum: 2GBs of RAM with 512MB of video RAM
Xbox 360: Unified 512MB of RAM
You know? Xbox 360 was supposed to have unified 256MB of RAM, but Epic Games conviced MS to increased it to 512MB for Gears of Wars 1
Nice. Now if you can do a Windows OS burden video showing how much system resources each version of windows uses on the same systems. As an example Win 10 with lots of GB's HDD space, does not do a whole lot more than windows 95 with its 45MB install.
If you used wikipedia for the 400Gflops, it's wrong, people are still editing it to be higher a decade later lol. 400 was what Sony advertised combining the CPU and GPU Gflops. RSX was around half of the total. Shader cores * clock speed * 2 is the equation for GPU Gflops on paper. Even adding in the vertex shaders it was not near 400. Nvidia back then, to counter ATI+Microsoft on paper, counted multiple operations issued with one instruction as Operations / sec, while everyone else did not.
Sony strikes again just like they lied about the ps2 and we all know how weak that shit was
Great video, however we should not forget a one important thing in the PS3 which is the CELL cpu. The cpu was calculating a pretty big part of the graphics, and thx to the flex system they were able to use each other's memory if i am right. So even though if the gpu is similar like 7800GTX it never will match with PC configuration.
Great video As always. They are both similar on paper but damn, console optimization. But, since console is locked at 30, i don't care. Also you can't play Quake III on your PS3 so I'd much rather have the 7800GTX
kakoka1pro: 7800GTX all the way for me, I loved using it.... it was so quiet I forgot it was in my PC
DX9 overhead is much greater than what Sony's API uses that's why it works so much better on the PS3. In fact, all of our PCs would work a billion times better if we didn't have the overhead (hence why Vulkan is made in the first place).
We could play Quake 3 on our PS3s if Sony didn't cockblock Linux as well as if we had a proper driver for the RSX. OpenArena runs like crap on software on PS3 :/
here's the thing with dx12 and vulkan, they're not doing shit with it and not only that, in some games, turning on dx12 makes the game run worse. Both Vulkan and dx12 turned out to be duds. These game developers are too cheap to pay their programmers to make proper use of these APIs. And the handful of games that do use these APIs, don't count. Also, all of these new multicore processors are useless unless you use them for productivity. The way I see it, I don't think game developers will catch up to hardware......greed is a bitch.
You can play quake 3 on a ps2, or an early ps3.. ;) it's not the same with a pad though
You can play Quake 3 on an Xbox though, and Quake 2 at 1080p 60fps 4x MSAA soo... Xbox wins?
Also PS3’s can do 60fps. Like every CoD ever for example
Damn, thats some smooth kelpy G in the background
Those Crysis settings are nothing alike, why are they not the same?
DiegoAlanTorres69: The PS3 uses the same engine as Crysis 3, meanwhile Crysis is on the original Cryengine 2.
I know I'm late here, but why even bother making the comparison knowing they are different engines? You would have been better off comparing Crysis 2 performance.
You could've shown Crysis 2 ... like for like instead of Crysis 1, lol.
Happy 420 subs! You should benchmark a Celeron 420 to celebrate.
Thanks, I may have to look into it
It is not just optimizations for the GPU, they offload many task to the CPU which is incredible powerful in the PS3, especially for that time.
HAL: www.techopedia.com/definition/4288/hardware-abstraction-layer-hal
Windows is quite layered, so there are all of these steps that the software has to go through in order to talk to the hardware. This is done for security reasons for the most part. DirectX 12, for example, decreased the amount of abstraction layers from previous implementations of DirectX. This process is known in the tech community as "getting closer to metal".
Well, console titles are programmed using near ISA (homedir.jct.ac.il/~citron/ca/isa.html) so the software talks almost directly to the hardware skipping a bunch of latency and delays imposed by abstraction layers. Less latency means a lower render time on a per frame basis which results in a higher amount of frames being delivered per second. AMD explains this process here while explaining Asynchronous compute : www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/fotostrecken/artikel-galerien/amd-asynchronous-shaders/amd-asynchronous-shader-20f7dd1f.html. Each one of those tasks listed there are to occur for a single frame. Many of them require the CPU or Memory or some other part of the system to communicate with the GPU. Sometimes to load up textures, other times for memory fetches and whatnot. Point being that each one of those tasks takes longer on a PC when compared to a console as there are more layers the GPU or CPU or Memory have to go through in order to talk to one another on PCs.
So it's not really about optimizations, those do play a role in that being able to talk to the hardware in near ISA means that you can optimize for certain GPU features not being taken advantage of by the current Direct X instruction set, but mostly about lowering the render time on a per frame basis resulting in a much higher frame rate by simply cutting out middle Men imposed by the Operating System and other abstraction layers such as the API itself (DirectX in this case).
This is why consoles tend to perform so well when compared to the hardware they have under the hood.
HL2 on PS3 is a gimped version, the x360 runs and looks a lot better. Crysis is different and shouldn't be compared. The reason it uses Cryengine 3 instead of 2 was because the console couldn't work with that engine, it wasn't able to scale all the way to back. Crysis on consoles is a mixed bag, since it removed graphical features while adding newer graphical features.
Note:That low performance on the nvidia is because of the operating system;if it were to be as light and optimized for gaming as the os on console,they would be the same.This issue is fixable by modifying windows or installing one of those ''lite'' windows versions from dodgy sites.It is not fair to compare it with any consoles performance.
The Xbox 360 was a real beast back in 2005, Xenos GPU had UNIFIED SHADERS which made it a superior to the PS3's RSX which had separate vertex and pixel shader pipelines. PS3 got saved by the CELL but it was so hard to program that only Sony first party studios actually fully used the system as intended. Sony should have waited 1 more year and maybe ship the PS3 with double the RAM, faster bluray(ps3 has 2x) and a better GPU that had unified shaders. Have to say the 360/PS3 generation was freaking amazing because both consoles had better specs than most high end gaming PCs. The 360 Xenos GPU was based on the Radeon X1800 XT which cost 500 bucks in 2005! In 2013 when the Xbox One/PS4 came out their specs where akin to medium range PCs, if they had GPUs that cost what the 360/PS3 had back in the day then the Ps4/Xbox One would have had 4 teraflops!!! but they didn't and both consoles had around 1 teraflops in their vanilla 2013 before they mid upgrade (easiest way to explain)
No
@@L4ftyOne maybe
Many last gen console games run in sub hd resolutions and the image is then upscaled to 720p/1080p. Also, even though they target 30fps most of the time, they don't hit that target all of the time. I've heard pretty bad things about the ps3 versions of Half Life and Skyrim, though I haven't played them myself. As for Far Cry, the engine was heavily modified so it could actually run properly on consoles and it still doesn't run all that well. But, yeah. I'd probably pick the ps3 over a pc with a 10-year-old gpu.
PS3 used NVIDIA gpu
PS4 uses AMD cpu and gpu
*Apu
@@mxzaiw2744 h
Did all of the PS3 models use NVIDIA or did any of the newer ones use AMD at all?
There is the PS1 library for the PS3 too. Which I believe is upscaled to HDMI, though no idea what the frame rate etc is there.
it was the 7900gtx that was comparable to ps3 not 7800
Allan Waterhouse not much different
Brillant work you are easily surpassing Digital Foundry.
How is Half Life 2 running so bad? I remember playing on my GT7600 with more than 60 fps on max flawlessly at 900p.
+MultiDeivas: Probably before HDR was enabled.
Budget-Builds Official with hdr. I even tested lost coast.
+MultiDeivas: Hmmmm that is odd, this area is one of the more intensive ones.
+Pith Helmet: Definitely what I would think was causing it.
Agreed half life 2 got the shittiest graphics ever and only 30fps?
The CPU plays a part in it as well, x86 and Cell are widely different, but I can't tell if that would skew the results apart from giving the GTX a little boost from using a modern CPU.
You should try comparing the Wii U to its rumoured equivalents: HD 6450 (160 shaders), HD 4670 (320 shaders) and HD 8470D iGPU (192 shaders).
Great interesting video! I love seeing console hardware and what it's based on.
Zecifer: Thanks for the comment man, will have to keep this in mind when the time for. the next review comes around :D
Nah thanks ill just bash into my ps1 a gtx 1080 and im good to go..
What you do, is you put an playstation chip in an xbox.
The PS1 is not a fucking pc you idiot..Theres no Pcie slots in a ps1
what you do... is you put an xbox chip in a ps1.
It has memory card slots
Jordan Anderson Looks like someone doesn't know the meaning of jokes...
Love the Sims 2 music in The beginning :)
is it just me, or does the Crysis' PC footage NOT run on actual Medium settings? Looks more like all-Low.
Not to mention the console port of Crysis have a lot of assets and stuff literally removed to make it run better.
Nice comparison and I understand that this is the main focus of the channel. However one is a gpu and one is a console with a bunch of hardware coming together under the control of the developer. Really, this is the only generation of game consoles that can be fairly compared to pc counterparts (or parts you can get over the counter *wink *wink) due to the design of the hardware but also the development of video games in general nowdays.
Unfortunately, Uncharted 2 or 3 wont run on even a 1080 Ti. :(
How you dare you to use video cards as example?
Just to clarify, I meant comparing the PS3 to a PC through comparing the GPU is largely irrelevant. The cell processor is so special, it is incredibly hard to emulate on a PC, although I think there is some steady progress on that front.
But I miss some PS3 exclusive titles. :(
Come on... they really aren't playable for 90% of gamers, you need an absolute monster of a pc to run demons souls - thats before all the horrible glitches and broken audio.
it's easier to just get an old ps3 at the moment.
it got a lot better just give them more time , plus even if you need a powerful gpu today give it 3 years ans 1080ti will be less than 200usd
another 3 Years? I don't think i'll care about playing Uncharted 2 by then... I played it 8 years ago already!
Ran 7800 GTX's in SLI paired with a FX-60 in my rig until the 7900GT came out. Swapped over to a pair and my son scored some 7800 GTX SLI goodness along with an Athlon 64 X2 4000+
That ps3 kicked in power for a while, even compared to that time high end pcs.
Too bad PS4 cant be said it does the same, they should have stayed with Cell processor to develop further.
PlayerOne Cell was a mistake. Too expensive for R&D and x86 surpassed it.
The problem with PS4 and Xbone is they use a slow 8 core AMD CPU based on 2012 tech. They're probably locked into the contract too with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X using the same damn processor.
Thats why i said to develop further, it was first time anyone have ever worked with Cell CPU, and i bet Sony and DEVs learned a lot about it and it could have improoved a ton for 2nd gen Cell.
I see it as a waste to kill it so soon.
Louis Monroe As far as we know, Xbox One X CPU is a refresh of Jaguar, which is what was used on PS4/Pro and Xbox One.
Until we know for sure, but I highly doubt they changed CPUs, too expensive. There's also no way they chose a Ryzen CPU too :/
PlayerOne It would have been a waste for consoles though, perhaps not for a super computers.
Most developers know x86. A lot of developers don't want to develop for anything else because it costs time and time is money.
A large reason the 360 held a long lead and had more 3rd party support and limited exclusives is because the CPU was easier to code for than Cell.
Using cell again would have been a disaster for Sony for the PS4. x86 was a safe call, they couldn't risk another "PS3 Launch"
An updated cell using Power ISA v.2.06 or later would have been much faster but I'm not sure if they could could have sold it at a the same price point as the AMD based system.
One issue they had with Cell it was difficult for some developers to write code for and they ended up making lazy ports that only used the PPU though more skilled developers were able to fully take advantage of the SPUs.
I can't believe Sony released the RSX based on the Geforce 7 which lacked unified shaders. In hindsight Sony should have delayed the PS3 to late 2007 and worked with Nvidia to use a Geforce 8 GPU as the basis for the RSX. What a huge mistake. Maybe Sony could have added more RAM as well and this should have propelled the PS3 past the Xbox 360
It doesn´t matter, as the PS2 got games in 2005 with only 4MB Video RAM
Consoles doesn´t need much RAM as PC, i mean try to run Far Cry 3 with only 512MB RAM
The only thing that PS3 needed was unified memory RAM, the powerful CPU would always make up the weak GPU in gaming
While the Xbox 360 and PS3 may had 512MB of RAM, the PC version requires 2GBs or more to run the same games
Well to be fair PC is running more than just the game.
They run it with with gargantuan program (Windows, Linux, etc.) and background applications
Im starting to think that consoles are just computers that have shitty stuff crammed in them.
The consoles are like the little speedy kids in the family. They're only good for mobility.
I'd prefer a console over a computer for gaming. But that's just me.
Your dog seems to be very cool while idle...
Ever thought about overclocking it?
the dog wait u finish this video to get back his ps3 that u lend from it!!
Love the sims music mateee
Intel HD 530 is better than both of these
Integrated graphics makes your processor run hotter, and it eats through your dedicated RAM (Because no graphics card = no VRAM).
If heat was such a concern you would redo the thermal paste and perhaps invest into a $20 cpu cooler that will improve cooling over the stock heatsink. Plus it isn't hard to own 4GB, 6GB or for the odd occasion you really need it, 8GB of RAM for your computer
well i live in venezuela, there is even more expensive..aaand... well.. i have 4g ddr3 1600mhz ram
Not particularly - I mean technically, yes, but that's accounted for in the chip's TDP. That means a 65W chip will output 65W of heat or less, regardless if the iGPU is used. To add further, due the compact design of consoles (also true for laptops), they use the same heatsink to dissipate heat from both the CPU and GPU, so you're going to have the same problem with a console - the graphics will make the CPU run hotter. Also, when a system with an HD 530 really wouldn't come with less than 4GB of RAM, which is far more than what the PS3 had, which was 256MB. Very moot points.
So is Intel HD 4000
Hilariously when I said the Xbox 360/PS3 were ahead of their time in terms of performance when they came out some person told me they weren't.
That was like 5 years ago or something and I didn't know enough about old computer hardware back then to attempt to argue with him.
Did you know ps3 Have 512Mb ram dont ask how
bazooka games ru serious
bazooka games
It had shared ram 256mb gddr3 and 256mb Vram for the Gpu
PS3 has 256 MB VRAM and 256 MB system ram.
Xbox 360 has 512 MB shared ram, similar to modern APUs or current-gen consoles, Xbox One and Playstation 4.
The shared pool of ram is one of the reasons most games ran/looked better on X360 than PS3 and why current-gen consoles also went with shared ram.
M T 4GB in 2005? I don't remember such thing. It was probably somwthing like 2 GB RAM on average.
Only the most expensive graphics cards had 512 MB of VRAM. And the average RAM for a PC was probably around 1 GB, not 4.
Really like your videos! But voice audio is quite low? coming from other videos I seem to need to up the volume every time.
Nyoooom
George O: Yes
Nice review, but you are comparing it with a card that was release a year before the PS3. By the time the PS3 was released The 8800gtx was already out. So if you want a fair comparison you should compare it to that card instead. And since 8800gtx has almost double the performance of a 7800gtx at ebay price of $15 today, its really a no contest.
Spongebob music
Sims 2 music*
Ignacio Romero look in the description
kelpy g
They're sub to view ratio is amazing how do they not have more subs
I3 6100 is definetly not a testing cpu... Is very weak cpu
+Geo Zefy: Not really, it won't bottleneck till around GTX1070 Levels of performance. The 7800GTX is nowhere near this...
Budget-Builds Official test it with i7 8700k 5 ghz :) i want to see
+Geo Zefy: There would be no difference to these results.
Geo Zefy i build a cheap gaming pc with Intel i3 6100 + GTX 1050. Every modern game ran fine in middle-high. Except Mirror's Edge Catalyst (it needs 4 physical Cores) so that game in low ran at 25fps hahahaha. But for rocket league, leqgue of legends, PUBG, fortnite, Rise of the tomb raider in middle And other Games is very fine~ the client is happy with the pc. It costed 330 USD aprox
Budget-Builds Official
It actually bottlenecks a 1070 by 22%...anything over 10% is considered bottleneck
a 1050 ti would be okay
I used a 7900 GTX last year in the winter when preparing to make my first gaming rig. It played Crysis on medium with no trouble. It's a really good card. I loved my PS3 as well and sadly it died to cockroach infestation and a new cat marking it, but it was interesting to learn where the graphics came from.
maby the ps3 over clocks it self
King Of You All Gamer bmx guy no. It has a range of clocks that ot wont go over. During development its hard locked into the system to never excede xxx mhz because doing so would cost more power and efficiency. Overclocking is a pc only feature because how many warranties do you thing would be voided if everyone could overclock a console?
Julian nuñez he probably means what is called a "boost clock". It allows the cpu / gpu to overclock its self if temperatures allow for it.
+kingryan920 Kingryan920
You need to softhack the PS3 to overclock it and only then it wont run the games any nicer or in higher fps it will only prevent games from dipping below 30fps or 60fps for those rare titles that has it.
great video and awesome channel, but why is the volume 15db lower than the average youtube video?
try gta5 inposible
If it had support for DX10 it could muster a somewhat playable experience on low at 480p.
Budget-Builds Official okey xd
could you say if this build is good i have a pc with these specs core i3 7100 corsair 4gbs ram 2133 ghz 450w psu and asus mobo h110-k and this is the upgrade say if its good btw im 13 pcpartpicker.com/list/TktktJ
Cancerish: Pretty much what I have, looks great 1080p High 60Fps in everything ;)
Budget-Builds Official oh thanks
Andy Knowles ,You a GENIUS...👏
2:09 Oh man. I almost forgot my daily dose of smooth jazz.
sims music in the background. nice :D
Bear in mind that the consoles were /upscaled/ to 720p, you can bet things would look a lot crisper if those consoles actually rendered at native 720p.
Revantu Yuizanche uhm, some do run at native 720p... 720p (interlaced) was already achieved in the PS2 era although not many games ran at that resolution.
Oh, true, I didn't mean to say that literally all games were upscaled. Mostly the graphically demanding and fast-paced FPS ones. For instance, I recall that Modern Warfare 2 was rendered at a resolution sub 480p and upscaled to 720p, and that isn't even a demanding game.
I liked the video, ...Got one for roughly 8 pounds and 84 pence (with post and packaging included) I've got the thermal pads ready :-)
Performance would be closer between the 7900GTX and the PS3 than the 7800GTX, since the G71 chips were born of the modifications made to the PS3's version of the G70.
I like your go-to drying location
Do a video gaming on the Nvidia Quadro fx 580!
i love watching people clean filthy graphics cards
I think people don't realize how cheapely they can make a gaming PC. I mean, I have a GTX 1060 and a I7 7700K and they definitly help me to reach great gaming comfort but for 100 bucks you can definitly make a nice PC that can run Next Gen games on low or even medium if you don't mind having your framerate capped.
Console players always say that gaming on PC is expensive, which is only true if you wish to get throught the roof performance, but to get the same experience you'e get on console, you can get it for cheap.
Minor audio glitch at 1:52. But i'm still a year late.
The 7900 GT and 7900 GTX were both built on the 90nm process unlike the 7800 GTX's 110nm. I feel like they would have been better choices to compare. The 7900 GT in particular has 256mb of VRAM and CPU and Memory clocks of 450 and 660 respectively, a bit closer to the PS3's chip overall than the 7800 GTX is. The 7900 GTX on the other hand is a bit more like a next step up and is what I use in an old XP build I put together to play games like Doom 3 and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory on an old CRT monitor. It's got a 650Mhz CPU clock and 512mb of Memory at 800Mhz.
I know they say the PS3 is based on the G70 which is what the 7800 is, while the 7900 is G71, but really a G70 die shrunk to 90nm is so similar to a G71 I don't think it matters much. The G71 is specifically said to be a product refresh of the previous line and not really any new tech beyond the die shrink and clock increases.
the 7900 series came out a year later tho
@@dexthegamer3234 Which was still 6 months before the PS3. Seems to me they were finally getting the production lines needed for the tech they developed for the PS3 and also used it in the 7900 refresh.
@@NiGHTSnoob no. Cause Nvidia said it was a 7800 GTX. Sony said it was a 7800 GTX..
It takes less time to Google then to pull bullshit from ur ass
i had some parts in my shop and i decided to build a gaming pc bcoz i still play ps3 version games in pc those were dualcore 2.2ghz with asrock mobo and 4gb rams with msi 9800gtx 512mb and im glad that it runs games like a charm in 60 fps and place it along side of my ryzen machine for old or semi modern games
I have 512Vram too,but i can't run even gta iv on 30 fps ,so how can u run at 60
It just gos too show what I good developer can do with the hardware given to them. I was shocked at the Uncharteds and Last OF Us and GTA5 how like how they pull that off on the PS3 amazing.
Even after all the hype from Mr. Wong at E3 2005, the RSX offered quite a pleasant gaming experience after all.
Its like my mali-G 830 mp3 on muy Galaxy Alpha 5 (2017) its amazing
I still have two of these 😍😍😍 they where amazing AF.
I used a very similar performance card, the 8600GT until 2013. Just goes to show how much those old consoles held progress back. That 8600 should have been obsolete in a year.
Please do another comparison video, but this time with the RPCS3 emulator, it would be great!