8600m GT 512mb VS. PS3

[ohaooa]

Hey guys, I have a question regarding the MBP's graphics card. Although I'm not considering an MBP strictly for gaming (I want to convert more than anything) it would be nice to know that I can enjoy good looking games. Are the graphics of the 8600m GT 512mb comparable to those of the PS3? Are there any websites that compare these things with side-by-side pictures or anything?

Thanks

 

[Yixian]

Regular GPU vs. PS3 comparisons are hard to make, the PS3 achieves a lot of it's graphics using the technology in the Cell processor, it's SPUs, and Blu Ray (things like texture streaming).

I'd plump for the PS3 anyway because those technologies helping the PS3 achieve better graphics than previously thought possible on the system all the time now.

 

[alphaod]

The PS3 is a gaming console so it's uses are nothing more than a few multimedia functions and gaming. You video card is used for a lot more than that, not to mention it has been power efficient.

 

[weemanpow3]

A computer graphics card do lots more than just graphics and pc games are writen to play on lots of combinations of hardware and developers tend to rush on that process and creates slow downs. For consules the games are writen to one peice of hardware and the developers can spend more time optomizing it for the best graphics.

 

[hvfsl]

The PS3's graphics chip is meant to be around the speed of a Geforce 7900GTX. So the G8600GT M is slower (although it does have more features).

 

[MattZani]

Whilst the speed of the RSX is about the same as a 7900GTX, it will creat graphics the 7900GTX cant even dream of.

At the moment, you will need a seriously pr0 setup to beat a PS3 or 360 Graphics wise.

 

[m1stake]

The PS3 uses a heavily scaled down version of the *7800GTX*, but will ALWAYS play games at good FPS. The 8600GT isn't a fancy card, and you'll quickly notice it won't be able to keep up after about a year or two. Compare that to the PS3's 10 year product cycle target.