Sony unveils new ‘Super Slim’ PS3

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by Mindz

You realize that the xbox trailer is fake, right?

Yes i know Jarrod. But, still fun posting it just "imagine" the possibilities

[INTIMIDAT3R]

Sony could give their Lamestations away and I still wouldn't own one.

I'm sticking with my XBox360, at least the money comes back to the U.S.

[christianmotox]

Originally Posted by austinjames

i don't care how slim they make the ps3, its still not an xbox, therefore I'm not touching it. Ive had a ps3 for a few years and I've only used it maybe 2 times to play a blue ray movie.

Ill give you 50 bucs for it.

[Mr_Draco]

Originally Posted by SPARTAN sui

Why? The current gen PS3 is nearly 6 years old! Sony needs to focus on bringing a NEW console to the market. I just hope Microsoft doesn't think the current gen 360 needs a "redesign" again.

All it's doing is pushing back the date for when they release the next gen consoles. Compared to my PC, the current gen stuff is looking pretty dated. It's amazing something like the Xbox 360 (which is nearly 7 years old) can handle games that look as good as they do, but if you compare it to a modern PC capable of gaming on high settings, you'll clearly see the console's age.

The PS4 really isn't needed for a couple more years. The PS3 is still several years ahead of the PC world. The fastest and most visually impressive super computer in the world was made using the hardware from a PS3. Sony designed the PS3 to last 10 years before they needed to release a new console and so far they have. It's been 6 years since it's release and game developers are still saying they have yet to tap into the PS3's full potential. They design a game with the purpose of pushing the system to it's limits just to find out it can take everything they throw at it and still take more.

[SPARTAN sui]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

The PS4 really isn't needed for a couple more years. The PS3 is still several years ahead of the PC world. The fastest and most visually impressive super computer in the world was made using the hardware from a PS3. Sony designed the PS3 to last 10 years before they needed to release a new console and so far they have. It's been 6 years since it's release and game developers are still saying they have yet to tap into the PS3's full potential. They design a game with the purpose of pushing the system to it's limits just to find out it can take everything they throw at it and still take more.

I lol'd at the bolded statement.

The processor in the PS3 is a thing of beauty, it actually is a powerful processor even by today's standards. However, that's about it. It's powerful, that's the only thing it has going for it. The GPU in the PS3 is severely lacking compared to even a midrange PC GPU.

Let's compare the PS3 to PC with Battlefield 3. One of the biggest differences is one supports only 24 players, the other supports 64 players. a 32 versus 32 war is WORLDS different than a 12 versus 12 battle. The PS3 simply can't handle that many simultaneous connecting players. BF3 also runs at 1280x704 (it upscales) on the PS3, while you can run it at 1920x1080 (native) on the PC. Which makes a big difference.

There's really no comparing, my PC I built for $1,000 will run circles around any console when it comes to gaming. Consoles are behind the times graphically. They look nice, PC looks better.

This is coming from a console gamer who's favorite game series is a console exclusive. (Halo)

[AZCamaroFan]

i thought there might be a price drop coming

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by SPARTAN sui

I lol'd at the bolded statement.

The processor in the PS3 is a thing of beauty, it actually is a powerful processor even by today's standards. However, that's about it. It's powerful, that's the only thing it has going for it. The GPU in the PS3 is severely lacking compared to even a midrange PC GPU.

Let's compare the PS3 to PC with Battlefield 3. One of the biggest differences is one supports only 24 players, the other supports 64 players. a 32 versus 32 war is WORLDS different than a 12 versus 12 battle. The PS3 simply can't handle that many simultaneous connecting players. BF3 also runs at 1280x704 (it upscales) on the PS3, while you can run it at 1920x1080 (native) on the PC. Which makes a big difference.

There's really no comparing, my PC I built for $1,000 will run circles around any console when it comes to gaming. Consoles are behind the times graphically. They look nice, PC looks better.

This is coming from a console gamer who's favorite game series is a console exclusive. (Halo)

What's your specs?

[SPARTAN sui]

Intel Core i5 2500k, ASUS micro ATX motherboard, XFX Radeon HD 6870 1GB video card, 8GB Corsair Vengenance RAM, WD Caviar Black 1TB HDD, & Corsair Pro 650w PSU in a Lian-Li chassis

That's pretty much it, nice mid ranged rig.

[SSGUNNER]

500GB???

thats a crap load.

[Quickstir]

You can easily fit 1tb on the older models

[irocnroll]

Originally Posted by Mr_Draco

The PS3 is still several years ahead of the PC world.

Um, no. Maybe if you are still running a commodore 64. My PC will blow the PS3 away. Consoles are great all in ones solutions for people that dont want to bother with upgrading their PC's or play with a bunch of friends in your living room. But if you want a true gaming experience its better with a PC rig with some of the newest hardware. There is a lot more potential with a PC than console.

[Quickstir]

Originally Posted by irocnroll

Um, no. Maybe if you are still running a commodore 64. My PC will blow the PS3 away. Consoles are great all in ones solutions for people that dont want to bother with upgrading their PC's or play with a bunch of friends in your living room. But if you want a true gaming experience its better with a PC rig with some of the newest hardware. There is a lot more potential with a PC than console.

That is true but very few ever LAN and besides a decent pc rig is still 2-3x the cost of a console.

[irocnroll]

Originally Posted by Quickstir

That is true but very few ever LAN and besides a decent pc rig is still 2-3x the cost of a console.

You dont need to LAN for multiplayer on a PC. Thats what dedicated servers are for. With faster and faster server blades and internet connections there are less and less reasons to have to do a LAN party to play large scale multiplayer battles on a PC.

[Quickstir]

Originally Posted by irocnroll

You dont need to LAN for multiplayer on a PC. Thats what dedicated servers are for. With faster and faster server blades and internet connections there are less and less reasons to have to do a LAN party to play large scale multiplayer battles on a PC.

Console games have dedicated servers as well. Either doesn't always work so well but that is a whole different issue. I just thought that was what you meant by playing with friends in the living room. Plus side for pc online gaming is that you can play with way more players online. Console games are way more limited compared to PC.