Top
470°

Xbox 360 vs PS3 11 page article

DPAD's Michael "Optimus" Perry goes beyond the range of an average review and breaks the PS3 and 360 down piece by piece, giving us a never before seen analysis of arguably the most heated debates in our recent console memory. PS3 or 360?

Read Full Story >>
dpad.gotfrag.com
The story is too old to be commented.
EasilyTheBest3817d ago

As if.... The best read for a long time... All flame wars or fanboy comments about mines better than yours should be posted to this..
Exceptional read, hope every1 on here has a long look.

dantesparda3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

I told you's over and over again that the 360's and PS3's processors/CPU's where in-order execution (which is inferior) and not OoOE (out-of-order, which is superior). And that this made their claims (Sony's & MS) of their speed (GHz) inaccurate and uncomparable to that of the PCs. And i said that their speeds are really closer to not only a 2.8GHz processor, but even lower than that! like say 2.4GHz! Or even less! I would say their 3.2GHz processors speeds are hovering between that range (2.4GHZ & 2.8GHz). And I got news for you's they both use a 128-bit bus to RAM from their gfx chips. Weak! very weak, most better performing gfx cards use a 256-bit bus, and the new cards are gonna start using a 384-bit bus (well it might actually be a 256-bit bus plus a 128-bit bus). 128-bit buses are usually reserved for computer's lower to midrange gfx cards. Hate to burst your bubbles kiddies, but the only reason why you see the 360 or PS3 match a PC is because when you design for the PC, you have to program the game for the weakest gfx cards, in order to be able to make it compatible for everyone. Whereas on the consoles, you can program it to take advantage of the full capability of the system. But raw powerwise. The consoles are still inferior to the PC, heck they were that way even when they came out. Yet you fools buy into all the marketing hype that comes out of these companies (and yes MS is guilty of it too, though I will admit that Sony is worst at it). If you programmed a game on the PC for only the X1950XTX or the 7950GTX, and a 3.2Ghz processor then it would look much better than anything on the 360 or PS3, but then only people with those configurtions or higher would be able to play that game. You are cutting of the majority of you ptotential customers. They dont do that!

Mikey_Gee3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

All I know is my PC is a 3.2ghz machine with 2 gig of RAM and a 256 meg 9800xt Pro Radeon and my 360 wiped the floor with my PC as far as games and smooth play are concerned.

My PC would not even run Fear unless I REALLY DUMBED DOWN pretty much everything. But my 360 runs it FULL BORE.

So compare what you want ..... my 360 is the better machine for games BY A LONG SHOT.

My 360 has NO OTHER HEAVY TASKS other than do one main function ... PLAY GAMES ... and it does it very well. No wack load of extra crap running in the background.

I was always a PC Gamer fan but got sick of dumping money into it .... in comes the 360 and I am VERY VERY HAPPY and IMPRESSED !!

dantesparda3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

Hm, that's funny cuz my PC has a overclocked 2.4GHz Barton w/ 1GB RAM running at 2-2-2-11 and a 9800Pro overclocked to 451MHz/387MHz DDR RAM. And and nForce 2 400Ultra chipset and i can run FEAR with all the setting up except for the "soft shadows" with Anisotropic filtering at 8x (something the 360 version does not do) and Anti-aliasing 4x and it runs at between 20-30 frames per second. The 360 version has lower res textures and runs at 30fps. So I dont know what you talking about, but you may wanna see what you're doing on your PC cuz its not looking to good. And P.S. Pentium 4's suck. But its still a faster processor than the 360's.
And upgrading you say, eh? hm, let's see, a AthlonXP Barton (not even the 64bit yet) and a 9800pro with a NF2 board sound really recent doesnt it? Get the [email protected] out of here. The 360 should be able to outperform it and it doesnt. Oh dont even let me get into how much better CoD2 looks on the PC, or Oblivion (which has way more tress and foliage) and how bout how much smoother (framerate wise) Condemned is or Prey on the PC. How bout NFSMW? you telling me it runs better on the 360 than on the PC? And dont even mention that sh!tty version of Quake 4 for the 360 my comp can run it at 60fps with MUCH higher texture quality/res. Shall I go on? Or are you getting the point? I should get a capture card and take pictures of both the 360 version of the game and the PC and see which ones look better. You better try again, you pawn

Mikey_Gee3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

Buddy, if you are trying to TALK ME INTO going back to a PC because it is so much better .... you are wasting your breath.

I will not try to convert you, so don't try to convert me !!

My PC game days are done for a while. The 360 to me is a killer machine with killer graphics and I have no desire to hope back onto my 19" monitor with my 67" set and my nice HT setup only a hallway away.

No more reading the side of the box for specs only to find out I need to downplay my setting to have it run nice.

And to get a decent video card, I will not pay these kind of prices .... JUST FOR THE VIDEO CARD
( http://www.futureshop.ca/ca... )

Not to mention I would have to upgrade my motherboard to a PCI-E to take full advantage of what the cards offer.

See what I mean ..... "MONEY PIT"

PS
It is very obvious you are a PC fan. If you have not noticed.... this is a heavy populated CONSOLE gamer area. You may want to preach on another area of the forum....

Hmm, try this spot
http://www.news4gamers.com/...

QUOTE:
---
Oh dont even let me get into how much better CoD2 looks on the PC, or Oblivion (which has way more tress and foliage) and how bout how much smoother (framerate wise) Condemned is or Prey on the PC.
---
END-QUOTE

The "TREES" in Oblivion on the 360 look fantastic. And I don't know "ABOUT" you, but Prey runs smooth as silk on the 360.

dantesparda3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

Im not trying to convert you. I could care less what you like. But when people make claims that are wrong, I'ma say something. And there is alot more trees and grass and foliage on the PC version. And once again, on my PC thats at like 20-30 frames. The 360 version runs at like 30frames, but stutters alot. And Prey may run fairly smooth on the 360 but its running at 30fps, whereas on my PC its running at like 40-60 fps. I am not a PC fan, a 360 fan, a Sony fan and a Nintendo fan. I like'em all. But I see to many people get to excited on this site and say things that are just straigth up wrong. And i am trying to correct people. Its one thing to say you like GoW more than Mario. Thats fine, thats an opinion, i got no problem with that. But if someone is trying to say that the PSone has better graphics than a 360 then I'ma step in and say something. But yeah its fine to like your 360, just dont be irrationable about it. That's all (and Im not saying that you are being irrationable, Im just saying "anybody" being irrationable)

Mikey_Gee3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

Well let's just say this .... if you are a person in my case ... that to get your PC up to snuff you would FOR SURE have to dump more money into it than you would for a 360 , the 360 may very well be a better choice.

I don't count trees or frames per second, I can only go by what I see and experience during game play. And with my 360 on a 67" Samsung 1080p DLP set ..... I "REALLY" like what "I" see.

To get the same game experience from "MY PC" .. it was much more logical to buy the 360.

BTW, the PS1 to 360 gap is MUCH LARGER than let's say the PC to 360. In this case I would be on your side saying the same stuff.

Fact is, since you have not sat and played at "MY" PC you cannot very well say "MY CLAIMS ARE WRONG". And although I appreciate what you are trying to do by correcting folks with claims that according to "YOU" are wrong , at 33 years old I really do not need you "CORRECTING ME"

;-)

Cheers

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3816d ago
rj813817d ago

Awesome article... sounds like the 360's GPU is a powerhouse and the PS3's CPU is very strong. Both consoles have their positives and negatives, coming out basically equal. BRING ON THE GAMES

DJ3817d ago

The author forgot about branch hints for the SPEs, and apparently didn't know that what in-order architecture calls for is a new way of coding. He seems intent on making it seem as if the Cell isn't built for current X86 coding, which it isn't. It just requires a different way of thinking.

What bothered me is that he ignored the Element Interconnect Bus (the most important part of Cell) and the XDR RAM connection, in addition to making it seem as if the Xenon can run branch-heavy AI functions better than Cell, due to the fact you can't branch code on Cell. But wait, Xenon suffers from the same problem, so what gives?

Assymetry isn't as bad as the author makes out either since there's only two types of processors in the Cell. One for general purpose, and 8 for SIMD/general purpose. Come execution time, games spend 85% of their time executing SIMD code so if anything the Cell was catered around that need.
----------------------------- -----------

I could go on and on, but the point is that this article was poised to make the 360 look better and the PS3 look worse. In fact the author spends 90% of the time critisizing the PS3 while ignoring the flaws of the 360. And then proceeds to say something like "But that doesn't mean Blu-ray is worthless."
----------------------------- --------
"The RSX is pretty much a 7800GTX class GPU in some cases its worse in some cases better, nothing that is really new. Now the same can’t be said about the 360’s GPU at all."

"Now the 360’s GPU is one impressive piece of work and I’ll say from the get go it’s much more advanced than the PS3’s GPU"

He says the Xenos can do 500 million polys a second, and then says:"The PS3 GPU’s triangle setup rate at 550MHZ is 275 million a second and if its 500MHZ will have 250 million a second. "

Where he got that number is beyond me since the old nVidia 7800 can do over a billion vertices a second.
----------------------------- ----------------
This is the most biased article I've ever seen, and unfortunately I've seen these statements before on forums from people like TopGamer. Most of what the author, Michael Perry, states seems to have been copied and pasted from anti-PS3 gamers.

The author made a pretty funny mistake when comparing the Xenos's 48 ALUs to the RSX's unknown number of pipelines. Pipelines and ALUs are not the same, as much as this guy wants you to believe.

His conclusion states: "While both consoles shine in some areas, they do have their softer spots." Ironically, he said nothing bad about the 360, and spent most of his tame praising it instead. He also succeeded in making the PS3 look like a POS that couldn't outthink a tortoise, and I'm sure this thing will quoted for years to come.

On page 10, there's a list of where he got all his 'enlightening' information. http://dpad.gotfrag.com/por...

Oh look, John Carmack's being quoted. He's never touched a PS3 dev kit in his life, but I'm sure he's the one to go to. ^_~ Point is, ignore this crap.

RelloC3816d ago

Haven't checked in for quite a while, but it's good to know your still an idiot.

CompGeek3816d ago

Has someone forgotten what a vertex is and what a triangle is? For the brain dead among us:

A triangle is a shape made up of 3 vertices.
275million x 3 = 825 Million

It adds up the the approximated 1 billion you gave.

Get a life, get a brain, get out of here.

blackmagic3816d ago

This is the type of post we get when a fanboy reads something that is blatantly opposed to what he believes. Complete denial.

LuminousAphid3816d ago

Exactly. 1 billion VERTICES/second = 333 million polys/second. 333 million < 500 million.

DJ3816d ago (Edited 3816d ago )

For those who didn't take Geometry. A vertice is simply a line between two points. You get 3 points connected to make a triangle (polygon). Next, you guys simply divided 1.1 Billion vertices a second by 3 in order to get a smaller than 500 million number for the 7800GTX.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. One polygon has 3 vertices. 4 polygons connected to each other have 9 vertices. 9 polygons connected have 18 vertices. You can see that the more polygons you have connected, the higher that ratio becomes, from 1:3 to 1:2, and it only increases with polygon counts.

And games don't consist of individual polygons floating around. They're connected at the 500~500,000 level to form characters, objects, and entire levels.

The polygon number for Xenos was also calculated assuming that nothing was skinned and that the ALUs were dedicated solely to Vertex processing.

Draw out the polygon figure if you don't believe me. You'll see that it depends slightly on how the polygons are configured, but barely. I'm a 3D artist so I know these things. It's kind funny that all of you simply accused me of being an idiot when your math skills definitely aren't up to par. Learn something, then get back to me. ^_~

The Snake3816d ago

My math skills are up to par and I can tell you that vertices is the plural of vertex. Vertex means corner. Yes, corner as in angle. Lines are drawn between the vertices, they are not the vertices themselves. Sorry to have to split hairs like that but I would ask that you bring your own math up to par before giving a math lecture to others lest you end up misinforming them.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3816d ago
zerofunction3817d ago

great read. both are complex and both are going to have great games.