Macbook Pro vs PS3

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by weenerdog, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. weenerdog macrumors member

    Dec 4, 2007
    So, how do the 330m graphics compare to the graphics power of the PS3?

    Just interested if anyone has an idea :)
  2. bigchrisfgb macrumors 65816

    Jan 24, 2010
    Why would you want to copmere any componants from these objects, or even the objects themselves. They serve very different means. A MBP is a laptop, a PS3 is a games console. As good as Macs are one thing is dertain, they are not intended for high level gaming, and if a Mac was then it would be the iMac. Yes they can safetly run say a version of football manager, but it's not a Mac's focus and it never will be.
  3. alust2013 macrumors 601


    Feb 6, 2010
    On the fence
    There is no way the 330m could even touch the PS3. It's not designed to be a gaming chip, plus it's a mobile version on top of that.
  4. GLS macrumors 6502

    Jun 26, 2010
    While we are at it, lets compare an apple (no pun intended) to an orange.

    Or a Yugo with a Lexus.
  5. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a


    May 30, 2008
    The gt330m can play nicely (or decently sometimes) any ps3 game also available for PC/Mac (like Fallout 3, Pro evolution soccer, Cod6,...).

    The ps3 like any console is highly optmized and can do more with less raw power.
    But it's only a matter of time for PCs/Macs to catch up. First desktops, then laptops. Eventually cellphones.
  6. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816


    Jan 8, 2009
    330M has four times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 256MB)
    330M has an advantage in memory frequency
    both have GDDR3.
    The 330M is based on GT216 as compared to RSX (330M is newer)
    330M is smaller nm wise.

    There's a lot of stuff that points in the favor of the 330M. On the other hand, the PS3 has major advantages in its dev kit and since the architecture hasn't changed in five years or so the developers are very familiar with what they can and cannot do. The 330M on OSX has its crap drivers.
  7. tjb1 macrumors 68000

    Aug 26, 2010
    Pennsylvania, USA
    So computers and cell phones are going to evolve while gaming consoles dont do a thing?
  8. weenerdog, Dec 7, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010

    weenerdog thread starter macrumors member

    Dec 4, 2007
    Thank you. I new asking this question would result in people getting all defensive and abusive but your answer is much appreciated.

    Seriously, I am well aware that a laptop and a gaming console serve very different purposes but I was genuinely interested in how the graphics performance between these two devices compare... and don't use that stupid, cliched apples and oranges analogy. It's perfectly reasonable to compare apples and oranges because THEY'RE BOTH FRUIT!! Maybe it would be somewhat outlandish to compare wine bottles and stalagmites but apples and oranges?? ... seems legitimate to me.
  9. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a


    May 30, 2008
    Not gaming consoles, THIS particular console won't get any more powerful than how it was friggin' 5-6 years ago (!!!) in sony secret labs. It will just get more and more energy efficient, cooler and smaller. (I happen to own a cech21xx, the coolest together with cech25xx)

    6 years are a loooooong time...
  10. ridnhard19 macrumors member

    Aug 24, 2009
    OP; is the question more along the lines "if my primary intent is to play games...." Game console or MBP?

    That makes more sense to me. Maybe with a little bit more information not so much ridicule would ensue :)

    Just saying.
  11. mrsir2009 macrumors 604


    Sep 17, 2009
    Melbourne, Australia
    Umm... what? PS3 VS MBP? :rolleyes:

    They are two completely different appliances. Its like comparing a cellphone to a microwave. :p
  12. deeesea macrumors 6502

    Aug 14, 2010
    I'd rather have the Yugo. screw lexus.
  13. weenerdog thread starter macrumors member

    Dec 4, 2007
    To everyone, I was just wondering how the two compared. I am well aware that the PS3 would run circles around the MBP what with it being a dedicated video game console and all... but I was wondering how close the graphics performance of the 330m gets to the PS3. I am not planning to only use my macbook pro for gaming... that's ridiculous. Anyway, I'm ranting to deaf ears.
  14. zachsilvey macrumors 6502

    Feb 5, 2008
    Battle Ground
    You should take into resolution into consideration. Most "next-gen" games are actually running at 540p or 720p and upscaled to 1080p while most macs are running at a much higher resolution. I am pretty sure that the 330M is technically more capable than the hardware in the PS3 (being 5 years old now) but the code on the PS3 is much more optimized.
  15. teknikal90 macrumors 68030


    Jan 28, 2008
    Vancouver, BC
    1. ps3's games are optimized for that specific hardware, whereas games on computers are coded to be more compatible with alot of different hardwares. hence, ps3 games' codes are more tailormade/efficient
    2. games on ps3 are mostly rendered at 1280x720 (viewing point being further away allows games to be rendered at lower resolutions)....on computers with monitors 1.5 feet away, theyre usually much higher, 1440x900 on laptops...
    3. the ps3's hardware was specifically designed for gaming. eg. the ps3 has 1 PPU (general purpose core) + 7 SPUs (highly specialised cores that are designed to handle tasks related to graphics rendering)...your macbook on the other hand, only has 2 general purpose CPU cores, that game developers command to do graphics related stuff - like getting an SUV to carry a cabinet in the back by folding the seats back vs. getting a pickup truck to do it on the tray..

    those three points may be the reason why the ps3 gives a 'better' gaming experience compared to a newer computer. however, i would imagine that as the technology gap widens, as the ps3 ages, the difference would become minimal, with the macbook soon surpassing what the ps3 could offer.

    right now however, i believe the ps3 is still superior.
  16. alphaod macrumors Core


    Feb 9, 2008
    The PS3 is optimized for one purpose—gaming; the MacBook Pro is not. Most games if coded correctly will look a lot better on a PC than on the console.

    The 330m is powerful enough to actually run most games at highest quality. All PS3 games would look a lot better on the MacBook Pro than it does on the PS3 if the developer decides to code it from scratch for the platform; the only reason a lot of games look like crap is because it's coded poorly; developers get lazy and they take shortcuts.
  17. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Jan 29, 2010
    Please. the GPU of the PS3 is very very weak. Even the XBOX 360 has a more powerful GPU.

    And none of the games run at Full HD, they run at 720p or even lower. While the 330m handles games like FIFA 11 at Full HD and everything maxed pretty easily.

    I'm not saying the 330m is a powerful GPU ( it's a multimedia GPU ), but let's not get carried away about the PS3, it's very weak.

    The only interesting thing about the PS3 was using it as a Linux machine with it's cell CPU, a very cost effective computer for heavy calculations, but Sony just killed that option.
  18. Stiss macrumors 6502a

    Apr 18, 2009
    Final Fantasy XIII runs at 1080p. It looks glorious too.

    Also GT5 is 1080p and 60FPS. That too looks great but suffers from a few minor niggles because of volumetric smoke etc.

    The PS3 is a great gaming machine.
  19. mark28, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010

    mark28 macrumors 68000

    Jan 29, 2010
    If you look at how they accomplished it, it just shows the limits of the PS3. The tracks of GT5 are not detailed and if you look at the shadows, it's very grainy which indicates it uses low graphics. It isn't that powerful in comparison to modern computers.

    We seen it also at GTA4. PC's max out that game at far higher settings despite it being one of the worst ports as it doesn't run very efficient on PC's.

    FIFA 11 runs at 720p from what i read on forums. The 330m runs it at higher resolution with everything maxed, so the GPU of the PS3 isn't really that much better ( which is hardly a suprise, since it's very old )
  20. JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Feb 9, 2010
    It really depends on what games you want to play. I only played the Call of Duty games on my PS3 and after my wife wouldn't stop complaining I sold the PS3 and installed Windows via Bootcamp on my 2.66GHz uMBP with 9600M. With a bit of overclocking and tweaking the detail settings I now get fantastic performance with Bad Company 2 and the CoD series, and better graphics than the PS3 in my opinion. Also bought a Scorch/Fragnstein controller. Presumably the new core i5/i7 CPUs with the 330m will perform even better.
  21. Jaro65 macrumors 68040


    Mar 27, 2009
    Seattle, WA
    Well now, we could always discuss the radiation levels....
  22. apolloa macrumors G4

    Oct 21, 2008
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    The PS3 has a pretty good GPU for it's day, with the PS3 you can also of load things like rendering to one of the SPE cores which gives it a boost. It also has XDR memory which is pretty fast but expensive and rare. It's a damn good console that I like very much.

    With a Mac, well I went for the hi - res display and my MB Pro cannot handle Starcraft 2 at it's native resolution, you really have to turn down the settings to enable this. This is in OSX and I would expect the same low performance in Steam games. Install Windows though and you can get better performance.

    IMO if you want to game on a Mac, don't get a laptop, get a 21.5" iMac with a core i5. That way you get a much better GPU and screen resolution not far off the one of my MB Pro, you also get a good CPU. I have to say actually I am disappointed in my laptops games performance. It's no Alienware but still.
  23. mrsir2009 macrumors 604


    Sep 17, 2009
    Melbourne, Australia
    Microwave wins! Although cellphones do emit strong radiation too :p
  24. Blu101, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010

    Blu101 macrumors 6502a


    Sep 10, 2010
    Four times?

    330M comes with either 256MB or 512MB of memory in a MBP, not 1gig.

    RSX (PS3) comes with 256MB of memory and has access to an additional 224MB of system memory for a max of 480MB.

    Seems about the same to me, especially since the 512MB version of the 330M serves no real purpose in gaming, as seen here:

    330M is 40nm.

    RSX is 45nm (it has gone down over the years).

    No real advantage there.

    Not really. The speed of the RSX's main RAM (256MB) is only 700MHz, but its system RAM (224MB) runs at 3.2GHz, which evens things out a bit.

    Clockspeed wise, the OEM speed for the 330M is 575MHz, and Apple downclocks it to either 500-550 or something like that, I forget the exact figure. The RSX runs at a clockspeed of 550MHz.

    No advantage there either.

    An overall comparison would be their GFLOP figure (more or less processing power), but I couldn't find one for the RSX (the 330M is 182 GFLOPS performance). Most sites simply report PS3 GFLOP performance based on the Cell CPU, which is around ~204 GFLOPS (there's some debate on the exact figure).

    In practical terms, this is a tough comparison, because the overall system comes into play and makes a big difference. The entire PS3 is optimized for graphics and gameplay performance, whereas the MBP is a general purpose multimedia laptop. The PS3's powerful Cell CPU makes up for its outdated RSX graphics engine. This is why, even though the PS3 is ~5 years old, it still has great video game performance. Other factors include console (like a desktop) vs mobile laptop (advantage - PS3) and the fact that the 330M is a middle of the pack graphics card and not the best for gaming.
  25. Blu101, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010

    Blu101 macrumors 6502a


    Sep 10, 2010
    Spoken like a true xbox fanboy :rolleyes:

    The Cell CPU in the PS3 is more powerful than the CPU in the 360, which is how the PS3 makes up for it. And its GPU isn't THAT much weaker than the 360's. Side by side screen shot comparisons of today's games (not launch games) have shown virtually no difference between the two consoles, and the minute differences that some games do show are atributed to the quality of the ported game (most games are dev'd for one console and ported over to the rest, thus, only one system has the full advantage of code optimization, while the others suffer a bit during the transfer), or simply due to the different default brightness/color level outputs of the consoles, which, once adjusted, disappears.

    You should get out more. There are a lot of games for the PS3 that run at 1080i AND 1080p.

    Ignorance is bliss ;)

    Wow, PCs have better graphics performance than a console...who'd a thunk that?

    PCs are always better at gaming and they typically output at higher resolutions. All they need is for the dev to optimize the code for a PC. They're also much more expensive to keep up to date with the latest and greatest, which is why most of us today game on consoles, not personal computers. This is also why most games today are no longer supported for computers, and are marketed for consoles only.

    I'm fairly sure the 330M is a better graphics card than the RSX in the PS3. But a fully optimized system (PS3) with an extensive game library and dedicated controls (Sixaxis controller) will still give you a better gaming experience overall, even if the graphics are a bit inferior vs what a gaming rig (PC) could do, not to mention much cheaper and lasts longer (product lifecycle).

Share This Page