Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by macall75, Nov 18, 2008.
How would you compare the new iMac highend 24inch imac 8800gts to the PS3?
Um - two COMPLETELY different things here.
Apple to Pickup Truck
Or Kitty Cat to Orion Space Capsule.
All around consumer level computer - video game junkie system.
I have both (previous Gen 24" iMac and a PS3).
The PS3 excels at heating my room, for the record. The iMac sucks at that.
I don't see the iMac being any competition for 1080p 60fps anythings. And certainly no competition for a Blu-Ray player.
Edit: If you're into games like WOW - the PS3 can't help you at all. Not good for MMORPGs. And for "arcade games" - OSX just got COD4, while PS3 just got COD5. One was designed from the ground up to be an all around average joe with a simple operation and small footprint. The other was designed to crank out the heat and render frames.
whats wrong with me saying that, Iam basically saying how do you compare these two products in terms of gaming etc. How much more plain english do you want!
Well - the last thing I think of when gaming is an iMac. With computer gaming I think PC. And I think a huge tower with loud fans and obnoxious blue LEDs everywhere.
With Console gaming I think PS3 or Xbox or Wii. I don't think iMac.
They're really not any competition for each other. They both have entirely different roles. Only commonality between then is they both require AC to operate.
i like console games personally. for what its worth, my gaming pc with a 8800gt performs better than my ps3 but not to the point that the ps3 sucks. sometimes its hard to tell a difference imo
also, the games i like are found on consoles for than pc's
in summary, let the game selection dictate what you use to play games
I had to open this thread simply to observe what the title was suggesting. I wouldn't consider a FPS on the iMac or racing games. WoW and C&C are the only games that I'd turn on the iMac to play.
These are very different and cannot be compared head-to-head as you suggest.
I would never play FPS shooters on the PS3, i only use them for football or racing games, or the odd arcade game, u just cant play these games without a mouse in my opinion.
It really depends on what you want to play. The PC and PS3 both have different styles of games for which they excel. Stick to the PC for strategy games, graphic adventures and any other mouse heavy games, the PS3 for the rest.
so exactly why did you ask the question if you already know your answer
Just curious on what other people think
You make it sound like all PS3 titles are 1080p and 60fps when that isn't the case. The iMac (at least the new one) can run certain titles at 1200p, supports DirectX 10 etc.
Depend on what's optimised for what system.
I mostly play games on my PC though. Better support all round, capable of better graphics, free DLC, good free online, etc... But both the Xbox and PS3 have been out for quite a few years now. They're no longer bleeding edge tech.
PCs = You Can Mod games, use a keyboard and mouse (the most important and natural way to play FPS), and type or use voice to communicate with other gamers.
PS3 = You can use a controller, watch blu-ray movies, and get so so graphics depending on the game since most are optimized for the lowest common denominator (xbox) and dont utilize ps3's hardware. Also the interface is ugly.
It seems like more people these days are switching to console but for those of us that grew up on the early betas of CS and Red Alert and other games then I think we will always be PC gamers. Or you could get both.
I can't believe you'd never play a fps on a computer... a)there's plenty of good ones, including free ones and b)a mouse is much more suited for it than a dpad or joypad. I wish my parents would let me get a fps on the wii... that'd be awesome.
The most natural way for a FPS is not a mouse - it's a gun.
huh? thats not what he said
wow I messed up. My bad!
@ Big-TDI-Guy - Rofl I remember using that waaaay back. Wasn't that bad, actually.
There is nothing more satisfying than hearing the "Pa-Cling!" when you pulled the trigger of justice.
Then the 2nd "Pa-Cling!" as you released the trigger of justice.
And that (@*#ing bulletproof dog. I wish the NES came with armor-piercing bullets.
Thank you Richard - you've help me resolve something from my childhood that therapy never could.
Ahh, to destroy that dog.
Not entirely. The 360 has the better GPU, the PS3 has an alternative CPU that performs better at some operations than the 360's and worse in others. But the PS3 can store more. Multiconsole games look worse on the PS3 because of its different CPU architecture and because the GPU isn't as good (though it's not a vast difference).
i thought the reason was because developers spent more time on the 360 as it is easier to code for and then port the ps3 version in a sense
I don't often comment on here, but I felt the need to say that if you're looking for gaming, completely avoid the PS3. I owned a PS3 as well as owning as 360 Elite, and yes, the PS3 was good for a certain amount of time, (around a month) it got old very quickly.
Sold my Ps3 for an iPhone actually, ha.
iMac, quality piece of kit, but its not really a gaming computer.
Remember, its not all about the strengths of the hardware, its the way its used, the Wii and 360 being perfect examples of this.
360's New Dashboard is out today - Makes a mockery of the PS3 XMB.
But if you have a major thing against Microsoft, go with the iMac.
Its really hard to compare they both are made for dif things.
um from my experience, the ps3 is loads better than the 360. maybe its because i have had to go through like 6 360's in 2 years due to r.o.d
if you want to go pc gaming, dont get a mac, build your own
for ***** and giggles, here is a thread i had on 360 vs ps3
and here is one i had on pc or ps3
hopefully that helps out somewhat op
A few developers have said that there games look better on the Xbox than they do on the PS3. I don't think the PS3 is significantly better hardware wise anyway.