XxMeltIcexX Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 clear this up, i want to say that a blueray disk holds 50gigs? true or false? as of now yes, they are going to be capable of 200 gb in the near future... (By next year supposidly) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPRuck Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 (edited) For the true gamer the 360 is the way to go, esp. since it now has HDMI digital out instaed of just the analog. Sony hasnt taken advantage of the blue ray technology for the games. Madden 08, basketball, COD4 and others all run better on the 360. I dont understand it if the PS3 has all that technology and power! Yeah the online play is free for the ps3 but guess what, IT SUCKS, always has since the ps2! Ask anyone who has both systems.. I'd rather pay the measly $50 bucks for xbox LIVE which you get what you pay for! Only thing the ps3 has going for it right now is the blu ray and would never pay that price for just that, a blu ray player. By the time they get their act together when it comes to games microsoft will have a new console out ready to drop. Edited October 25, 2007 by RIPRuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bansh-eman Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 For the true gamer the 360 is the way to go, esp. since it now has HDMI digital out instaed of just the analog. Sony hasnt taken advantage of the blue ray technology for the games. Madden 08, basketball, COD4 and others all run better on the 360. I dont understand it if the PS3 has all that technology and power! Yeah the online play is free for the ps3 but guess what, IT SUCKS, always has since the ps2! Ask anyone who has both systems.. I'd rather pay the measly $50 bucks for xbox LIVE which you get what you pay for! Only thing the ps3 has going for it right now is the blu ray and would never pay that price for just that, a blu ray player. By the time they get their act together when it comes to games microsoft will have a new console out ready to drop. ok i got a few questions and comments, i havent really been following the consle war so im a little unclear on most of it... but how is it that the 360 is way better scine it NOW has hdmi? my ps3 has been running on an hdmi cable from day one. just becasue the ps3 hasnt started formatting games on blueray dosent mean much really. the 360 couldnt even offer this until very recently. so they as well arnt offering games that play in 1080p. so its same same... is it not? i can agree that with most things you get wath you pay for... for th most part but i havent played either system online so i cant say good or bad for either of the two. but you say once ps3 sarts using blueray on games then microsoft will drop another consle... so you would reather spend the 500 bucks now play some games that are not ready for 1080p and then another 500-600 once this new system drops to beable to play 1080p formatted games? that dosent make muh sense at all, with the ps3 they are atleast capabile of playing them form the get go, so there is no need to worry about buying another system... it kind seem your shooting your self in the foot... but maybe i read it wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxMeltIcexX Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Another sad 360 fanboy.... Blu-Ray will be utilized in the next year, thats why many games (Dont know them off the top of my head) will only be exclusive to PS3. Aparently you dont own one RIP, the online play is awesome. I've been there done that with LIVE, wont ever make that mistake again. Where did you get your info saying that COD4 runs better on the 360? There isnt even a COD4 demo/beta to compare to the 360? EDIT: No sure but my understanding is that COD4 wont be a native 1080p signal but a 720p, PS3s is a Native 1080p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNBRAD Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 PS3 has Cat5e and Wireless...Also it can do component and HDMI... The Next gen games are going to utilize the Blu-Ray disks on the PS3 as ONE of the maps on the upcoming games wont even fit on the 360 DVDs. Blue-Ray will infact be the future, while DVDs and HD-DVDs will be obsolete. Just some food for thought, any other questions you may have? What do you mean utilize blu-ray? You mean having games that actually require a blu-ray, as some of them don't even though they are on one? The blu-ray currently is capable of 50 gigs, the 360 is capable of 9 gigs. This difference will become apparent real quick with the release of GTA-4 and many more games in the future. 360 just doesn't have the room for these large 1080p games. This will be there downfall and if they want to keep up I'd expect a system revamp with incorporated internal hd-dvd and games on them as well. Someone said they have internal hd-dvd's now, which is crap. Even if they do this they will still be behind the blu-rays capabilities. RIP, you must be smoking crack!! "For the true gamer the 360 is the way to go, esp. since it now has HDMI digital out instaed of just the analog. " LMAO!!! That's a drop in the hat to what it needs. I have both systems, have had the x-box 360 since it's inception as well as the PS3. But to say those games run better on the x-box 360 is just so far from the truth it's rediculous. You must be reading some misinformation from a web site or something. Also remember the cell processor is a new critter and a leap in technology, it takes more time to gear these games for one. It's just like anything that's new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintoxicated Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) I hope the computers can play hd-dvd and blu-ray formats better than they played dvd's. The quality from those units were nothing to write home about, regardless of video card quality. But then again there has never really been a need for high end video processing units for computers as well as sound, at least not in the consumer market. Also remember you can't compare the speed of a PC based video card to the PS3's cell. Brad i think your living in the past. TV through my Computer's media center vs cable box looks almost identical, and I can calibrate my TV using my Spyder 2 pro where I cannot calibrate the TV without going through the computer. What do you mean Comptuers can't play DVD's well? I can sit back on my bed with remote and hand and play DVD's HDDVD's watch Divx etc all thoguh Sage Media Center. The new Video cards help do hardware decoding and even if you don't have one of the new cards the processors out these days are easily fast enough to do all the decoding/processing. you can get awesome sound cards that use the same DAC's as high end audio equipment. I honestly have no clue what your talking about here, I think you are not up to date. you must be thinking back to when you had to use power DVD to play everything and jump around with a remote lol. Sure cards cannot be compared directly by their maximum capabilities, but they will be so far ahead of consoles come Q1 I can honestly say that consoles will be nowhere near as close. Already I can tell a hgue differnece in games like Bioshock for PC @ 1080p vs Bioshock for X-box 360. Consoles are typicaly ahead when they first come out due to PC not being a dedicated gaming systems (not optomized), but as of Q1 high end PC's will again be far ahead of conoles until the next generation comes out... After all, new consoles these days are low end PC's that are optimized for gaming. That IS what they are... This is not the new line of cards coming Q1 but will likely be my next purchase for my HTPC/Gaming?workhorse of a PC. http://www.v6batmobile.com/G92/?e01b0f90 interesting abotu the hardware decoding for Blue Ray and HD. Also lists the Capacities of the media. Edited October 26, 2007 by Justintoxicated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNBRAD Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 banshe-man, your pretty much getting it figured out as well as most of the public. Adding an hdmi to the x-box reminds me of people putting hood scoops on their cars while keeping a closed intake system. Or in reality, it's like putting lip-stick on a pig. Makes it look better on the outside with no real benefit. The PS3 requires the HDMI, that's why they put it on there in the 1st place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxMeltIcexX Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 What do you mean utilize blu-ray? You mean having games that actually require a blu-ray, as some of them don't even though they are on one? Meaning that they will actually use the full potential of the disk itself, games right now arn't using a quarter of the size of a blu-ray. and Justintoxicated - your comparing your computer (Aparently a 1080p output) to a 360 (Not 1080p Native signal). We are arguing the point of the PS3, not 360. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNBRAD Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Justin, you show me a sound card with K-grade burr brown DA converters, using 3 per channel and I will apologize. Your definition of high end and mine I'm sure are a little different. Computer's can't touch the technology placed in our living rooms. Why, there is no demand for it and what is out there if any would be unrealistically expensive. For the average person, yes a computer does well. A computer just doesn't have the space to incorporate the componenets, such as these large and expensive DA convters. I'm sure 6 of them incorporated in my dvd player cost more than your intire computer system. But then again it is a high end unit, though it's old it will outperform anything a computer can muster sound and dvd wise. And BTW: My unit is an old 2001 Denon dvd9000, which is old technology that I doubt todays computer technology has ever even dabbled into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintoxicated Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) Justin, you show me a sound card with K-grade burr brown DA converters, using 3 per channel and I will apologize. Your definition of high end and mine I'm sure are a little different. Computer's can't touch the technology placed in our living rooms. Why, there is no demand for it and what is out there if any would be unrealistically expensive. For the average person, yes a computer does well. A computer just doesn't have the space to incorporate the componenets, such as these large and expensive DA convters. I'm sure 6 of them incorporated in my dvd player cost more than your intire computer system. But then again it is a high end unit, though it's old it will outperform anything a computer can muster sound and dvd wise. Well most of the new cards have replacable DAC's so you can change it to whatever you would like, but then you have to choose either a gaming card that supporst EAX5.0 or something more suitable for HTPC. The Auzentech Prelude is a nice compromise http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...ntech%2bPrelude. Burr brown is not the preference of many people in the HTPC forums, although some say they enjoy the warmer sound from it. Hell buy a card and try them all out untill you find the DAC you want. I don't have audio equipment in my bedroom where I would even notice the difference in DAC's except for perhaps my Audio Tech Headphones. Honestly I don't see the point in using 6 DAC's when a single 24 bit should be plenty for most. After all it is not just which dac is used but how they are implemented. Maybe if your using Electrostats and have a million dollars in equipment you will notice the differences more. However in your case, it would be better to use the optical output to a reciever that has audiofile quality DACs, while using the analog connects to support EAX 5.0 to get the best sound for games (not sure consoles support this?). Remember computer is just another component to some extent, you will still need your TV amplifiers/recievers etc. Those devices should not be counted as they are made to be hooked up to a PC as well. But to say a computer cannot optimaly play back HD or blueray is crazy. There isn't as much demand for it because most people don't even know what a HTPC is currently. I don't know if your DVD player costs as much as my entire PC, maybe it does maybe not, but I would hope NOT! You will be seeing more and more HTPC's poping up in the next few years, IMO I think it is the way of the future, not overpriced equipment with limited functionalities. PVR's CD Changers etc all becomeing integrated though a PC really does make sense. Right now it is the Cable companies not meeting compliance to have working firewire ports on HD boxes that are holding my system back. I have to buy a 3k system to record HD with their box just because they have tampered with the firewire port, and even then I can not hookup the 3k Cable Card tuner because they are not offering cable cards! (RANT). Thus some failure in my system as I cannot receive Pay stations through firewire (It's hit and miss right now from neighborhood to neighborhood). Brad you are correct adding HDMI to X-box really does not make sense, it should only be used if the only free plug you have is HDMI more like an adapter than anything, it this kind of logic that makes people purchase Pear Cables and such because they think the cables make THAT much of a difference in sound... HDMI is not capable of the same resolutions as a dual link DVI cable from a PC, although no TV's out currently exceed 1080p anyways. There are some nice monitors 30"+ that exceed Blueray resolutions though. DVI + Optical/Analog is my connection of choice. HDMI is nice and simple and clean though, but its nice to plug the audio directly into another source if desired. Buying a PS3 or Xbox360 for video playback does not make much sense right now either. I would expect the Dual format players to hit the shelves any day now, as you can already pick one up for a PC for about $270 (I'm not paying that much unless I can burn Blueray!) http://www.ncixus.com/products/index.php?sku=26553 As it is not I would still suggest the X-Box 360 for gaming, because the PS3 can have all the hardware capabilities it wants and it won't make a lick of difference because there are not enough games for it. if they make games for it later then great, the money you saved buy the 360 should cover the PS3 by that point in time. Crazy thing is that if I was able to choose either system for free I would still pick the PS3. Edited October 26, 2007 by Justintoxicated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintoxicated Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 looks like stand alone HD/Blue Ray players will be quite expensive. Suddenly $270 is looking like quite a bargin! http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Announces...article8186.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNBRAD Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 Well like you say, in my words though, dac's are one thing, architecture is another. It's like motherboards and processors. To say a computer can't play dvd's or blu-rays, I didn't. I don't know what blu-ray looks like from a pc. All I can vouch is DVD output quality. Is it ok? yea probably for most, not for me though. Honestly, in my study I have a nice gateway computer which I use to (did) watch dvd's on with a 42" Toshiba Regza 1080p cineman series. After a couple movies on it, I was sick of it. I used an old sony dvd player in my attic and hooked it up. I couldn't believe the difference in playback quality with just a cheap ole 120 dollar sony unit. Now granted I have a Gateway GT4010 media center computer with an Invidia c51g chipset. Granted not the latest greatest by any means but it is also no slouch. It honestly is nothing compared to a cheap, old technology sony. Neither come close to the denon. It wouldn't to me really make sense to spend countless hundreds of dollars to equate what a cheap dedicated home unit can accomplish. You compare dollars to dollars spent and pc's are behind and in high end scenario's can't produce. Granted some of the PC peripheral hardware companies cater to some of the high end folks, probably not too much unlike yourslef. but to really compare high end PC audio/video to high end home audio/video really isn't fair to the PC market. It's just flat out not what there geared to do, reason cause the demand is minimal. To put the architecture of my dvd player into a pc cabinet would probably increase it's size x2, add 50lbs of weight and add 3k in price. Not realistic in any means to match high end home theater equipment. Most people want that type of quality on there 50+ inch HD big screens, as where most of the population use small monitors. I may be an exception, but then again I don't sit at a desk behind my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintoxicated Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) Well like you say, in my words though, dac's are one thing, architecture is another. It's like motherboards and processors. To say a computer can't play dvd's or blu-rays, I didn't. I don't know what blu-ray looks like from a pc. All I can vouch is DVD output quality. Is it ok? yea probably for most, not for me though. Honestly, in my study I have a nice gateway computer which I use to (did) watch dvd's on with a 42" Toshiba Regza 1080p cineman series. After a couple movies on it, I was sick of it. I used an old sony dvd player in my attic and hooked it up. I couldn't believe the difference in playback quality with just a cheap ole 120 dollar sony unit. Now granted I have a Gateway GT4010 media center computer with an Invidia c51g chipset. Granted not the latest greatest by any means but it is also no slouch. It honestly is nothing compared to a cheap, old technology sony. Neither come close to the denon. It wouldn't to me really make sense to spend countless hundreds of dollars to equate what a cheap dedicated home unit can accomplish. You compare dollars to dollars spent and pc's are behind and in high end scenario's can't produce. Granted some of the PC peripheral hardware companies cater to some of the high end folks, probably not too much unlike yourslef. but to really compare high end PC audio/video to high end home audio/video really isn't fair to the PC market. It's just flat out not what there geared to do, reason cause the demand is minimal. To put the architecture of my dvd player into a pc cabinet would probably increase it's size x2, add 50lbs of weight and add 3k in price. Not realistic in any means to match high end home theater equipment. Most people want that type of quality on there 50+ inch HD big screens, as where most of the population use small monitors. I may be an exception, but then again I don't sit at a desk behind my computer. I dunno man, I see no difference between my dedicated DVD player and my Computers both hooked up to the same 1080p TV/Monitor, hell I think it looks a little better on my computer since it is using a DVI and the DVD is only component (plus I have calibrated my 1080P TV through software which is not possible to do without much more expensive hardware calibration tools), the differences in picture quality (not color) are minimal as either connection is excessive for DVD playback. I do not see any other difference when comparing to my Parents Sony DVD other than it has too much damn region code protection and I can't play all movies. In fact I hate Sony DVD players because of all their decoding regulations. Just to make this clear, you are comparing your computer hooked up via HDMI/DVI to 1080p TV/Monitor to your sony DVD hooked up to the same TV/Monitor hooked up via HDMI/DVI (because it does not sound like this is the case)? I honestly cannot believe you can see a difference since it should be the same digital data being sent to the monitor... Now if you were connecting to your TV via S-video or some such connection then That is the difference you are seeing. I would have to see it to believe it because that is not my experience. Digital data passed by one player should be identical to anothers, it's quite a bit different than the old Analog Processing and conversion. If your PC is not fast enough to process the data, then that is another issue, and like I said newer cards coming out handle hardware decoding so your processor does not have to strain nearly as much. I think it is ridiculous (these days, no offense to your older dvd player or anything) to own a 50lbs DVD player with 6 DAC's then to output it to analog into a reciever. You would be much better off purchasing a dedicated high end receiver and piping in optical or S/PDIF (digital signal) to it and letting the receiver with however many DAC's it needs to decode audio for ALL your devices INCLUIDNG audio from the computer for HT. So Again the point is pretty much moot. That DVD player may have been nice before Digital outputs were out, but having one dedicated receiver that can do what your DVD player is doing audio wise for ALL DEVICES makes a hell of alot more sense. These days DVD/HD/Blue Ray players don't need to have expensive DAC's in them as they can simply pass-through the digital code and let the receiver do the work. The reason sound cards still need DAC's is due to the need for EAX support for games, otherwise Digital outputs are prefered to a high end receiver for HT applications. So actualy you CAN get buy with a tiny Blue-Ray/HD player in a computer just fine. No1 said anything about stuffing a receiver into a HT computer case.... If you need to justify spending $1200 for a dedicated Blue Ray Player vs me spending $270 for the exact same thing for a PC, then I can understand the frustration. But in the end you have the same digital output going to the TV screen... Digital is digital, thicker cables are not going to make digital sound/picture any better than thin/chincy ones so long as the signal is getting to the other side properly (thicker cables are better for long distances yes). I would still pickup an X-box even if it has lower output quality since they are cheaper and have alot more games than a PS3. Neither console is future proof, the only things future proof are things you can upgrade and even then it will only go so far. I'm not much of a sony fan either as everything sony I purchase is typicaly junk. My best sony purchase over the past few years however has been the PSP, so this may not apply to gaming consoles. Edited October 26, 2007 by Justintoxicated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPRuck Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 I'm not bashing on your ps3 man, relax.. Just saying the 360 has the titles and games right now. I can easliy buy a ps3 but dont choose to as it wont get much use. I like to play a good game at times and I havent seen anything on the ps3 that has cought my eye.. When I play its online and the ps3 doesnt quite have that yet either. If I was a hard core movie watcher than yes I would buy the ps3 but nah not for me yet. I have friends that love to game and have both systems and the 360 gets most if not all the use. Yes when its time to watch a movie they power up the ps3. I will most likely buy a ps3 in the future if the games get better, dont want to pay that money just to watch a good flik in 1080p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justintoxicated Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) I'm not bashing on your ps3 man, relax.. Just saying the 360 has the titles and games right now. I can easliy buy a ps3 but dont choose to as it wont get much use. I like to play a good game at times and I havent seen anything on the ps3 that has cought my eye.. When I play its online and the ps3 doesnt quite have that yet either. If I was a hard core movie watcher than yes I would buy the ps3 but nah not for me yet. I have friends that love to game and have both systems and the 360 gets most if not all the use. Yes when its time to watch a movie they power up the ps3. I will most likely buy a ps3 in the future if the games get better, dont want to pay that money just to watch a good flik in 1080p. I completly agree, for movies, its better to have a combo HD/BR player anyways than to buy a PS3 just for BR. The prices just need to come down. In fact the only thing keeping the PS3 selling at this point is in fact that it is a better movie player with better output connections. People don't want to pay $500 now for something that shoudl be better in the future. Even the X-box's games will look better later as code is optimized for the system. At this point by the time PS3 gets the support it needs X-box will already have launched the next console. Edited October 26, 2007 by Justintoxicated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.