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?
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.
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!
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 !!
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]
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.
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)
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
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
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.
Haven't checked in for quite a while, but it's good to know your still an idiot.
LOL GET A LIFE.
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.
This is the type of post we get when a fanboy reads something that is blatantly opposed to what he believes. Complete denial.
Exactly. 1 billion VERTICES/second = 333 million polys/second. 333 million < 500 million.
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. ^_~
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.
great read. both are complex and both are going to have great games.
Very interesting!! At the end of the day, everyones a winner, regardless of what console you have. If your a lover of all consoles (there are a few of us on here ya know!) then the next 5 years will truly be memorable.
Good Find. WOW. It basically confirms in detail what I have been saying for months now. But its all proven in one nice place. BTW...I beat Gears of War and I'm bout to play Insane mode. Its clearly the best game ever created. This article proves once and for all which is the most powerful console. Now that, thats out the way. Lets play some Great games. Thanks Microsoft. DJ...its not too late to Jump In buddy. Many gamers are jumping in on the 17th when they stand in line and can't get the ps3 due to limited amounts. They will then jump in with a free game...Gears of War or COD3 most likely. WOW. Reading your post DJ, I can see you are frantically trying to do damage control. Only problem is...you are a fanboy. Your opinions on this site aren't respected. You never have links to support your false claims...well, except when you post links from PS3 forums from other ranting fanboys. This is the most detailed thorough comparisson yet. And its not biased at all. He is just completely Honest and not blinded by the type of fanboyism you suffer with daily. Its so clear that you are Jealous and its sad to see you struggle to save face. Just stop it man. The war is over buddy. Either Jump in and get the 360 or wait and get your ps3. Either way...Just be happy dude. You loved your ps2 and it was clearly out classed by the xbox. No biggie right? So its no big deal that the 360 is a better gaming machine this time around either. Just play what you want and stop with the Fanboy rants. If you have money dude...just be a gamer like me and get both consoles. If not. Get what you want and be happy.
How are links from the ps3forums any more biased than the links you post all the time: Microsoft's biased and innacurate calculations: http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... And the interview with the Microsoft Employee: http://arstechnica.com/arti... If you could please explain to me how those links are more credible than, oh lets say, this link http://ps3forums.com/showth... I would really appreciate that.
"Only problem is...you are a fanboy. Your opinions on this site aren't respected." You have the nerve to call someone a Fanboy is incredible. You've got to be bipolar.
the article was a nice read, but i'll leave the debating about which is more powerful between PS3 and 360 to Sony and Microsoft. as a gamer all i care about is the games. GOW is gorgeous; however, i've hard a lot more fun playing FFXII with last-gen graphics (8 hours of shooting aliens, gorgeous graphics notwithstanding, just can stand up to 80+ hours of rpg finesse, in my opinion). so since GOW was SOMEWHAT of a let down (just a bit), my anticipation for the following has been whetted even more: Alan Wake, Fable 2, Bioshock, MGS4, Halo 3, Assassins Creed, Heavenly Sword, White Knight Story, Motorstorm, Elveon, Ratchet and Clank 5, FFXIII, NGS and a few others. sure, these games LOOK like graphical marvels, but more importantly they look FUN.
Im with you on that Zypher, and certainly im waiting for FFXII to drop also!! FF7 is probably my fav game thus far, but all the FF`s to date have offered countless hours of entertainment also.
I'll take countless hours of gameplay over a fps anyday. FFXII with last gen graphics closing in on some of the regular 360 games. Gears while fun is just way to short for a game. I'm not a fan of this new gen of games where all they think about is online play. I want a story I want to play the game. And FFXII is all that and then some. I played Gears beat it and ran right back to XII ^^
and give credit to the people on this site who already knew this and get at some people who continue to make an @ss of themselves even though the information is presented right there in front of their face. First of all I would like to thank unknownunknown for this is proably the best article ever posted. 1. 256 mb - 32 mb for the os can be dedicated to graphics. More memory from the cell can be used as well but that sint optimal and comes at a price in terms of performance just as top gamer been said. 2. DJ unless you have links to back up what you say pleas shut the hell up for you dont know what you talking about and its funny how you think you know more than developers (carmack) but you dont. I also believe that you were the one who said that Mark Rein didnt know what he was talking about when he said that Gears of War couldnt possibly be done on the ps3 due to the ps3s memory constraints. You sad sad fanboy. 3. Yes the 360 gpu is the better and more advanced of the two which is probably why sony is so reluctant to release the finalized specs of the RSX just as the mart said. 4. Ubisoft- Remember what they said about A.I. for the 360 in comparison to the ps3 but then changed their comment for damage control with sony and not hurt the little sony fanboys feelings. Hmm. Enough said. O and Jade Raymond fine. And as the article said ps2 had more gflops on paper than xbox as well but I think we all know which console was the most powerful of the last gen now dont we? Damn I love it when stuff like this happens. O and the 360 is actually more capable of 1080p than the ps3 is. 6 times more capable I believe. Interesting. I also want to point out that HS looks amazing and is being developed for the ps3 despite all the hurdles of the system so think how great games are going to get on the 360 whos system is very developer friendly and and has less far less hurdles in terms of development and better development tools. I shudder to think how things would be today had microsoft never entered the gaming industry. And I bet you some sony fanboy is going to come at me wit sum bullsh!t and try to twist my words as always because the truth hurts but you know its all good and you know who you are.
You can't accept that I take the word of Tim Sweeney over Mark Rein since Tim Sweeney is lead programmer of Epic Games? Mark's a VP, that's it. And yes, EE was more powerful than the Intel Pentium 3 (Xbox) in terms of floating-point calculations, despite being clocked at less than half the speed. If you compare the PS2 and Xbox versions of MGS2, it's obvious that the Xbox version couldn't handle the SIMD-heavy stuff like rain physics. What Xbox had was more RAM, a wussy CPU, and a great GPU thanks to nVidia. PS2 had no general purpose power, and look at the kind of games they made on that sucker. And yet, now Microsoft claims that games are mostly general purpose calculations? Come on. They're only saying that because that's all their console is really good at. Even Tim Sweeney shot down their 'General Purpose' accusation a year ago. " O and the 360 is actually more capable of 1080p than the ps3 is. 6 times more capable I believe." What a f-ing wild claim. I guess that explains why PS3 had 1080p output from day 1 while Microsoft spent a year and a half trying to create an update. I'm sure it's because the 360 is '6 times more capable'. LOL
No matter what is posted you will shoot it down. Here's another post: http://www.itvidya.com/play...
"When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3." i've seen this line before and my question towards it is "WTF"?
But just glancing at that last IVvidya article makes it obvious that the author has no clue. He calls the SPU's of Cell for DSP's, probably citing MS sources as that was how they've categorized them in multiple interviews, when in fact they are not. In fact it seems like the entire article is a writeof of earlier MS half truths.
"How are links from the ps3forums any more biased than the links you post all the time: Microsoft's biased and innacurate calculations: http://xbox360.ign.com/arti... And the interview with the Microsoft Employee: http://arstechnica.com/arti... If you could please explain to me how those links are more credible than, oh lets say, this link http://ps3forums.com/showth... I would really appreciate that." Sorry, but analysis's made by O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L sources who have gaming hardware and software as their area of expertise are far more credible than anything said or calculated by gamers on either side. I cant believe u think that a forum consisting of nothing official but rather just theories made by fans who could be 7yrs old for all we know could possibly be more credible than the words of the clarified experts (even if theyre biased, that doesnt mean theyre wrong, its just like how in the commercials one company explains how their product is superior to the competitors).
I don't really get how you can somehow try to argue that the sources that TopGamer repeatedly cites are objective. If Phil Harrison, an O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L spokesperson, and an O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L source, claimed in an interview that the ps3 was 5 times as powerful as the 360 there would be tons of people out there rebuking his claims. By your logic however, his statements would be deemed more credible because of his O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L status as opposed to anyone else on the internet. Did you even read the link I posted? I'm not linking to fanboy rantings; that would get us nowhere. The author of the link I posted obviously had a grasp of technical knowledge beyond what a 7 year old could muster, and it appears beyond the capabilities of Matt Lee, your trusted O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L source. "even if theyre biased, that doesnt mean theyre wrong" This quote just sums up the illogical nature of your argument. Some biased sources are somehow much more credible than other possibly biased sources. Everytime you and TopGamer make these claims I have to post links to disprove them. Then, instead of responding directly to them, you hypocritically disregard them as biased, while ignoring the inherent, and blatant, bias in your sources.