PDA

View Full Version : Ps 3 instead of desktop pc?



Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Would it be wise for me to get a ps3 instead of a quad core PC for everyday use. I know it's a bit of a bizarre idea but the ps 3 would be by far the cheapest solution and I could run Linux none the less. And it would be awesome for gaming.

What do you guys think?

gn2
September 14th, 2009, 01:27 PM
Depends what you want to do with it.
The PS3 has a very limited usefulness as a PC due to low RAM and would be no match for any quad core PC.
If all you want to do is surf the net, office tasks and suchlike the PS3 would be fine.
The new slim version has had the ability to install a second OS removed.

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 01:31 PM
Yeah I know about the ram. Also is it possible to attach/replace the bluray drive with one with write functionality?

gn2
September 14th, 2009, 01:36 PM
If B. Gates cellar is in the UK, what about one of these (http://www.ebuyer.com/product/161926)?

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 01:40 PM
Kk after read some reviews and from other forums I understand this is a silly idea. I'll go for a quad-core phenom II x4 940 machine.

Thanks for replying!!

amitabhishek
September 14th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Yeah I know about the ram. Also is it possible to attach/replace the bluray drive with one with write functionality?

I have been trying to install Ubuntu for past two days but haven't been very successful. This was suppose to be a very straight fwd. process. I din't had courage to try YDL!

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1266068

So you need be careful about that. You can replace the HDD without voiding the warranty but not Blu-ray drive. Why would you want to repalce a Blu-ray drive anyways :shock:.

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 01:50 PM
Why would you want to repalce a Blu-ray drive anyways :shock:.

Cause from what I heard you can burn disks on that drive.

koshatnik
September 14th, 2009, 01:51 PM
Kk after read some reviews and from other forums I understand this is a silly idea. I'll go for a quad-core phenom II x4 940 machine.

Thanks for replying!!

Is there any reason why you need a quad core? are you doing hardcore 3d image rendering or lots of intense sound processing?

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 01:59 PM
Is there any reason why you need a quad core? are you doing hardcore 3d image rendering or lots of intense sound processing?

No, only gaming (and I know the gfx is somewhat more important). Also I want the system to survive for at least the next 7 years. A dual core or ps3 would be a bit outdated by then, no?

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 02:25 PM
No, only gaming (and I know the gfx is somewhat more important). Also I want the system to survive for at least the next 7 years. A dual core or ps3 would be a bit outdated by then, no?

get a quad, don't let anybody tell you any different. you're a geek like the rest of us so you're going to want to get as close to the holy grail as you can afford. so what if you don't use every bit of potential a quad system has to offer, if you can afford it and you want it, get it. no regrets.

kpholmes
September 14th, 2009, 02:35 PM
get a quad, don't let anybody tell you any different. you're a geek like the rest of us so you're going to want to get as close to the holy grail as you can afford. so what if you don't use every bit of potential a quad system has to offer, if you can afford it and you want it, get it. no regrets.

I like your philosophy

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 02:47 PM
I like your philosophy

Lol me to.

Before most of my friends would always criticize Ubuntu cause "it's only suitable for older systems". Heck Ubuntu can manage 64-bit much better than windows!

I love all the power I can get under the hood (case). :guitar:
Anyone know in which conditions will the Phenum II x4 940 overclock to 3.8Ghz on air?

RiceMonster
September 14th, 2009, 02:49 PM
get a quad, don't let anybody tell you any different. you're a geek like the rest of us so you're going to want to get as close to the holy grail as you can afford. so what if you don't use every bit of potential a quad system has to offer, if you can afford it and you want it, get it. no regrets.

Agreed. Thus why I have a quad core with 4GB ram.

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 02:51 PM
the "suitable for older systems" is somewhat true, but for those of us that don't have or want old systems, who cares? part of putting together a new system is not only the joy of doing it, but knowing that you have some killer cherry picked components to show off.

Xbehave
September 14th, 2009, 02:57 PM
get a quad, don't let anybody tell you any different. you're a geek like the rest of us so you're going to want to get as close to the holy grail as you can afford. so what if you don't use every bit of potential a quad system has to offer, if you can afford it and you want it, get it. no regrets.I disagree part of being a geek is not falling for stupid marketing tricks, a real geek buys the right tool for the job. If he doesn't need a quad core he shouldn't get one, he should opt for the bottom of the price/performance curve (the sweat spot where you get the best value for money).

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 03:00 PM
I disagree part of being a geek is not falling for stupid marketing tricks, a real geek buys the right tool for the job. If he doesn't need a quad core he shouldn't get one, he should opt for the bottom of the price/performance curve (the sweat spot where you get the best value for money).

marketing tricks and wanting the best that you can afford are two different things. just because you can't afford it or don't want to spend it doesn't mean the rest of us don't know how marketing works.

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 03:17 PM
I disagree part of being a geek is not falling for stupid marketing tricks, a real geek buys the right tool for the job. If he doesn't need a quad core he shouldn't get one, he should opt for the bottom of the price/performance curve (the sweat spot where you get the best value for money).

I'd love a Quad Core thanks. No seriously, It's not like I gonna you only one core and let the other three ideal the whole time.

koshatnik
September 14th, 2009, 03:44 PM
get a quad, don't let anybody tell you any different. you're a geek like the rest of us so you're going to want to get as close to the holy grail as you can afford. so what if you don't use every bit of potential a quad system has to offer, if you can afford it and you want it, get it. no regrets.

When geeks ROAR!

I want a quad core now and I'm not even sure what one is.

RiceMonster
September 14th, 2009, 03:52 PM
When geeks ROAR!

I want a quad core now and I'm not even sure what one is.

It's a processor with 4 cores, just like a dual core has 2.

koshatnik
September 14th, 2009, 04:00 PM
It's a processor with 4 cores, just like a dual core has 2.

Oh. How disappointing. I thought it was something rude.

LowSky
September 14th, 2009, 04:01 PM
I disagree part of being a geek is not falling for stupid marketing tricks, a real geek buys the right tool for the job. If he doesn't need a quad core he shouldn't get one, he should opt for the bottom of the price/performance curve (the sweat spot where you get the best value for money).

When you talk about tech, saying the best tool for the job, is always going to be a high end model, because it will have the longest shelf life.

One of the best deals out there is the Intel core i5 at about $210 over at newegg. Until AMD drops the cost on its Phenom II's to under $200, which is what I'm waiting for.

Expecting it to last 7 years is a bit long in the tooth. And if you want it to you need to spend a lot more money.

RabbitWho
September 14th, 2009, 04:17 PM
for gaming personally I prefer consoles.
It just makes more sense to me. Computer joypads are never as good... and playing with a keyboard and a mouse is just.. uch.. unless you're playing a civilisation-type-game.

And anyway... You can play Final Fantasy with a PS3. I will get one in 10 years when they are 50 quid and have 3 FFs out.

Blacklightbulb
September 14th, 2009, 04:30 PM
When you talk about tech, saying the best tool for the job, is always going to be a high end model, because it will have the longest shelf life.

One of the best deals out there is the Intel core i5 at about $210 over at newegg. Until AMD drops the cost on its Phenom II's to under $200, which is what I'm waiting for.

Expecting it to last 7 years is a bit long in the tooth. And if you want it to you need to spend a lot more money.

I personally don't like the i5 and $210 is too much for me. I'll either get a Phenom II 940 or wait till AM3 gets cheaper.

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 04:58 PM
for gaming personally I prefer consoles.
It just makes more sense to me. Computer joypads are never as good... and playing with a keyboard and a mouse is just.. uch.. unless you're playing a civilisation-type-game.



k/b and mouse will kill a joypad player @ same skill level in FPS. i am not wrong.

graabein
September 14th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Limited access to RAM and graphics makes it not very useful as desktop pc in my opinion.

On topic of marketing and computer power and the computer user's needs, well sometimes they just intersect. Don't pay too much attention to what's marketed and not. Those guys will sell anything if they can make a buck.

carlosgs91
September 14th, 2009, 07:17 PM
.

Warpnow
September 14th, 2009, 07:20 PM
k/b and mouse will kill a joypad player @ same skill level in FPS. i am not wrong.

Is gameplay about effectiveness or enjoyability?

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 07:21 PM
Is gameplay about effectiveness or enjoyability?

it's about winning. i enjoy winning.

note that i'm more directing this to multiplayer FPS.

Firestem4
September 14th, 2009, 08:51 PM
If you're on a budget be sensible. You don't need a quad core to game. I just recently bought AMD's new Athlon II X2 250. it was 75 dollars and it has amazing performance. Its only dual-core but nothing i do even comes close to needing 4 cores. And I am a heavy gamer too, however most games are not written with multiple-core support in mind. (newer games are/may but older ones certainly are not.)

Not to mention the CPU is fairly energy efficient and if you need more performance it can be overclocked to 4.0ghz with great stability.

While I agree that theres no kill like Overkill (dual quad core duo's =P), Theres no need to throw out good money.

khelben1979
September 14th, 2009, 09:30 PM
Would it be wise for me to get a ps3 instead of a quad core PC for everyday use.

No.

gymophett
September 14th, 2009, 10:12 PM
Long answer short.
I would get the Desktop PC, buy a controller, and do some serious gaming.

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 10:23 PM
Long answer short.
I would get the Desktop PC, buy a controller, and do some serious gaming.

lol

earthpigg
September 14th, 2009, 10:36 PM
get a quad, don't let anybody tell you any different. you're a geek like the rest of us so you're going to want to get as close to the holy grail as you can afford. so what if you don't use every bit of potential a quad system has to offer, if you can afford it and you want it, get it. no regrets.

also, 60gb SSD as main hard drive.

i am quite happy with mine.

and who here does not have a couple hundred gb of storage sitting around doing nothing that can be used to store music/movies/etc? the small size is a nonissue.

pwnst*r
September 14th, 2009, 10:52 PM
also, 60gb SSD as main hard drive.

i am quite happy with mine.

and who here does not have a couple hundred gb of storage sitting around doing nothing that can be used to store music/movies/etc? the small size is a nonissue.

agreed.

Warpnow
September 15th, 2009, 08:42 PM
it's about winning. i enjoy winning.

note that i'm more directing this to multiplayer FPS.

Just run an FPS with multiplayer, but don't have the other players controlled. You can go around killing them all day long and always win! :-p

I suppose I like to win, but playing the game isn't about that for me. Its more about having fun in the moment. I don't dislike using a keyboard, nor do I dislike using a gamepad. A gamepad, though, is alot more relaxing as you don't have to be sitting up in a chair. Alot easier to relax on the couch with a controller. Depends what kind of mood I am in.

starcannon
September 15th, 2009, 08:46 PM
Would it be wise for me to get a ps3 instead of a quad core PC for everyday use. I know it's a bit of a bizarre idea but the ps 3 would be by far the cheapest solution and I could run Linux none the less. And it would be awesome for gaming.

What do you guys think?

Linux on a PS3 is as far as my experience, a "just because I could". It was not practical when I did it; indeed there were no video card modules/drivers available, and at that time no plans to release any. I'd recommend getting the quadcore PC if your needing a computer; if you want an all in one box, ironically I believe I have heard good things about linux on the Xbox; I'd certainly explore that avenue before making a console as my sole computer decision.

GL