The Xbox 360 and PC versions of id's Rage sport higher framerates than the PlayStation 3 version, the latest issue of Edge magazine reveals.
So the question is what would you rather have a smooth 60fps game or no 1 sec disk swapping hmmm... Edit: Still waiting for the first multiplatform title which is actually on par/better than its 360 counterpart Anyone know how many disks the PC version will be cause i think thats on DVD too, would be quite funny if the obviously superior version comes on multiple disks lol.
I can have both because I am getting the PC version. edit : Yes the PC version will come on multiple disc's which will all be installed to the hard drive. You know just like how ALL pc games are installed to the hard drive. The dvd media is just to get the game onto the machine so it doesn't matter how many discs the PC version has. The PC version will be clearly better to deny that because of "No. of discs" is ridiculous. PC gamers will be able to play RAGE at 2560 x 1600 if they have the hardware, your console will play it at 1280 x 720. I myself will be playing it at 1680 x 1050 @ 60fps and I won't have to change a single disc because it will all be installed to my hard disc.
I'd rather have it locked at 30fps and on one blu-ray disc, than a theoretical 60fps on four DVD's and having to switch discs every quarter of progress into the game. But the 360 version will also be available for full download on the Marketplace so the switching disc thingy won't affect all owners. And as i have read, it's pretty far away from release... They can enhance the framerate somewhat on the PS3 version by then. I'm not a fanboy, i'm just trying to prevent the whole "YOUR VERSION IS WORSE THAN MINE HAHAHAH!!!" edit: N4F News 4 Fanboys.
1 second disk swapping, I highly doubt it. Also COD 4 on both PS3 and 360 are equally from what I've played of them. SO is Battlefield 1943, those title are on par. Also last I checked the PS3 can do 60fps... namely Wipeout HD, so I don't know what your trying to say.
"I'd rather have it locked at 30fps and on one blu-ray disc, than a theoretical 60fps on four DVD's and having to switch discs every quarter of progress into the game." really? You rather have the gimped down version than take 5-10 seconds changing a disc a couple times? What ever floats your boat!
That just shows us how good of programers they are
It's not even locked at 30FPS for the PS3 version, it's 20-30 while the PC and 360 version are locked at 60FPS. Ouch, considering how excited they were when they thought they had the superior version.. :(
@ Charmers They expect you to install 25GB thats crazy @ Cwalat "360 version of Rage - which uses id's new Tech 5 engine - matches the 60fps framerate of the PC version, while PS3 runs at just "20-30fps"." Its not locked at 30fps so expect a lot of framerate drops. Swapping disks is nothing compared to that especially for a FPS.
@Charmers Hey let me geuss 22 inch screen? I play at the same resolution, love every minute of it. Going back to 1050 x 785 (I know that may be wrong) makes it seem like everything is 400 times bigger then it should be.
Personally, I have no problems disk swapping because as Xbox Empire said, it takes only about 5-10 seconds. I mean seriously, you must be lazy as hell if you cant get off your ass and take seconds to swap disks. Although I am curious on how disk swapping would work on a sandbox game, such as Rage. BTW Omega, that's a pretty good question because both would be nice.
the xbxox [email protected] (lol) Don't know if it's worth commenting back to a fanboy like you, but when is 30fps a gimped down game?! Nearly every single game that gets released runs at 30fps... If you weren't such a fanboy you'd realize that by now. AND YES... I would rather have 30fps (which is standard today) than having to stand up from my couch getting pulled out of that level of immersion when you play a game and change discs... not once.. not twice... but three times.
Anyone surprised by this really needs to put another coin in the meter upstairs. id Software are a PC game developer. The 360 has a very similar set-up to PC so developing a smooth running 360 won't be difficult for them. They are completely inexperienced in PS3 architecture though so of course they're going to struggle. Anyway, no one is going to buy a different console on the strength of this so how does it at all matter?
Getting this game for PC I think. But it's kinda obvious that the game would run better on 360 if the architecture is the same, things need to be optimized for the Cell SPUs to have the same effect on PS3. And if devs did that, they would get games of Killzone 2, Uncharted 2 quality, but they don't. @Omega - I seem to recall that Burnout actually looks better on PS3, and I've played both the PS3 and 360 version of the game. I'm still waiting to see one console game that looks better than Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2.
@ Odion yep slumming it with a 22" monitor waiting for prices to drop a bit on the 2560 x 1600 monitors before I look to my next upgrade. If they don't start dropping soon I may look to getting an interim 1920 x 1200 monitor. I just hope ID have put a bit of work into the gameplay, always felt their games were excellent engines but a bit poor in the gameplay stakes. Still I will be happy to install 25gbs, last time I checked I had close to 700gbs of space free.
Don't you people ever get bored of debating this nonsense?
This doesnt really say anything about how the final product will be. Carmack himself said PS3 has about 20% more theoretical power. I doubt he would let the PS3 version run at half the framerate. That would put a scratch in his reputation.
As a PC gamer, multiple disks never bothered me. I mean, back in the days of 700 MB CD's, Half-Life 2 came on 5 CDs but it only took like 15 minutes to install.
@ SuperM "Carmack himself said PS3 has about 20% more theoretical power. I doubt he would let the PS3 version run at half the framerate" "Theorical power" that's the key word, "Theorical". Anyway, this is a very talented group of developers. Im pretty sure the PS3 version will look a and run as good as the other ones.
Stupid PS3! We could have twice the framerates on most of our games if it wasn't for it holding us back! </sarcasm>
@Omega4 "They expect you to install 25GB thats crazy" 500GB HDs are pretty much the standard for PC nowdays. So, yea, they will expect you to install 25GB. Have you ever known a need to swap disks on a PC game this decade? Also, 20-30 fps for an entire game sucks, period. Especially this generation. Any PS3 fanboy who tries to convince themselves "it's OK, I'd rather have Blueray" is only fooling themselves. The PS3 is an awesome machine, but I'm alot more concerned with performance over graphics. This is coming from a PC only gamer, and it's not a fanboy rant at all. Just my 2 cents.
If 360 fanboys care about graphics why dont they just go out and buy a ps3 a lot of great exclusive games show the power it has in the inside..I rather go with one disk i hate switching disks on and off when i want to play a certain level.its going to be really frustrating and tedious..Also you have to take care of all 3 disk so if you lose one or get get it scratched up you are screwed..lol..
Yes i know. But Carmack is the kind of guy that likes to push hardware to its limits. If his game runs at half the framerate on the console he says has a slight edge then that makes him look bad. Hes also been talking about how 2 consoles have never been as close in performance as this generation. So even with that, he'd still look stupid when 1 version runs at half the framerate.
You speak of immersion. I am sure you have played MGS4 as I have, the level of immersion was taking away with the loading screens between acts and scenes. My question to you is, what the hell is the difference between waiting on a loading screen and switching a disk??? I know I could switch a disk 5 times faster than what it took for MGS4 to load the next level. Play whatever system you like, but your argument fails.
So the PS3 version will have better textures in some places, according to Carmack, and the 360 version will run at a higher frame rate. Interesting. The PS3 version also has the advantage of being on one disc. But I think I will be going for the 360 version on this one.
First of all if you have a computer that can run it you should be getting it on PC anyway, and that goes to all the people bashing the 360 version because the PS3 version is suppose to be the better console version. Now to the main point. Once again we are graced by ignorance, and people trying to get hits through the fan boy war. I'm sure that many of you have the Gameinformer with Rage, and instead of just looking at the picture maybe you should read it. They state that the 360 version is coming along faster than the PS3, because the system is easier to work with. However, they have a team dedicated to working on the PS3 to keep development along with the other platforms. The PC version of the game is most likely going to be ported to the 360, with optimizations to get the best possible game for the 360. But they stated for the PS3 version they started on PC and are building the rest of the game up specifically for the PS3 (this was in another article not GI), and that the PS3 version of the game would most likely have better lighting, better textures, and more things going on screen at once due to the extra processing power, and not having to switch multiple disc for the game. That being said of course there are going to be difficulties when you're putting more into one product, and we all already know it more difficult developing a PS3 game compared to a 360 game as developers have stated this since the beginning of this console generation. But the most important thing is Carmack says both versions will be as close to the PC version as the can possibly be meaning if the PC version runs at 60fps then you better believe the 360 and PS3 will also be at 60fps (hopefully no huge drops for either system). And by the way Rage has no release date, it's still TBA so we won't be seeing this game until 2010 at the earliest. I could see if the game was coming out this year why we should have to worry about the PS3 version being only 20 - 30 fps, but there shouldn't be any worries about this game unless the same thing is happening this time next year. Goodness use your brain to think sometimes people. And this website needs to post the entire article and not just some clip to fuel a fanboy war.
Whats funny is most of you 360 diehard fans probably dont even have a HDTV so the fps wouldnt matter to you.
MGS4 did things weirdly with it's installing. Kojima Productions could've made it all install at the start but they decided to install each act separately to save Hard Disk space. MGS4 is the only PS3 game to handle installs like this so your argument fails.
"As long as it still plays good and is still fun, thats all that matters to its millions of fans." - Omega4 on graphics. So.. thats not the case for the PS3 right? Only the 360? ---- Im shocked 360 fans still debate graphics. What game does the 360 even have that looks better than MGS4? Despite installs. None? Which unreal engine game .. lol.. looks better than PS3 titles again? And as Mark Reign said, most 360 owners don't even have HDTVS.
Especially 20. 20 is getting into a chop fest. 30 is ok, but I notice anything lower than about 65 which is annoying. I hope they fix it some, atleast get it up to 40 or something, give it more room to chug around with.
Killzone 2 runs at 30 frames and the game looks freakin sweet. In the end these guy are PC programmers, that is what they love and what they are best at. The PC version will be superior to both the 360 and PS3 versions. lol and I'll still most likely get the PS3 version.
What? Frames per second would matter equally whether you were on a standard def TV or an HDTV.
He said 360 has a faster GPU. So much for the PC and PS3 versions being the top dogs as PS3 fans have been saying. EDIT disagree? 1 August, 2008 "What you can say really quite clearly and not get into too much argument about it is that the 360 is much easier to develop for, it's easier to get the performance out of it that it can deliver, and the rasterizer, the GPU side is generally faster than what the PS3 has," "If you were doing a whole lot of simulation, you can in theory get more performance out of the Cell processor than out of the two other dual-thread processors on the 360, but that's a big 'in theory'," Like in theory that dinosaurs looked a certain way or moved and acted a certain way LOL "360 is our primary target"
They have a year to get the framerate up on the PS3. But no amount of time is going to collapse those 360 discs onto one single disc. And if you notice nothing is really said about image quality...
*loses a disk* f***!!!!
They have a year to work on the 360 version too. lol 1.34 *wastes money on HDTV because of PS3, throws dualshock at wall because of unplayable framerates*
id should get new programmers for the ps3 because the current ones are probably playing wow all day. a difference +-35 fps is unacceptable. If the PS3 is hard to develop for then hire more experienced/better staff and charge $5 extra for the ps3 version of the game instead of delivering a orange box like port.
but still highly doubt they are going to leave it that way ... ..... "its like saying... hey ps 3 owners here's a middle finger and a hand me down from us ... go ahead enjoy" ...... bullsh*t ... they'll fix this for sure... really glad to see that the 360 is holding up well... those damn dvd's are the only thing holding it back
60 fps over 1 disk anyday Im playing 5 or 6 hours 60 fps wtf is wrong with fanboys,playing 6 hours straight in 60fps,then swap disk for 10 seceonds,then finish the whole thing in 60 fps is SO MUCH BETTER THAN 1-BLURAY 20-30 fps suck guys HEY GUYS,im looking at the screen,not THE FCN DISK,I buy games for gameplay and 60fps is best for "GAMEPLAY"
What makes you think that it will change? this is not the first time this was the case. This is a high fidelity game how do you know that this isn't the only way to get the PS3 to perform on a level close to the PC and the 360? After all it will probably be the best looking game on consoles because it is now(if it were to be release now compared to anything shown so far on all platforms)
How much you bet this is overhyped BS to increase sales?
The specs that matter the most are memory, graphics, and processor. -Memory *both consoles have about the same amount of memory, with the exception that Xenos has a dedicated 10MB of EDRAM. PS3: 256MB XDR + 256MB GDDR3. Having memory split between the two main processors has advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that workloads will always have to be smaller to fit into the main system, since each pool is hardwire programmed to be DEDICATED to its respective component. Also, the framebuffer resides in RSX's own GDDR3, which doesn't provide it enough bandwidth for most PS3 games to have antialiasing. Xbox 360: 512MB GDDR3 + 10MB eDRAM. With an emphasis on having one large pool of memory developers can build larger workloads. -Graphics *both consoles have a very powerful graphics chip, with the exception that Xenos was built on a newer architecture. PS3: RSX, a standard shader array GPU clocked at 550mhz. 24 pixel plus 8 vertex shaders, total avaiable shader pipelines is 32. It's pixel shader processing power is very high, but it lacks in vertex processing when compared with Xenos. Not as efficient in handling dynamic workloads, and also can't be fed physics or geometry shader programs. Xbox 360: Xenos, a unified shader architecture GPU clocked at 500mhz. 3 16-pipeline shader arrays in a 48-way dual-parallel shader core, total avaiable shader pipelines is 48. The pipelines may not be as brute-force powerful as RSX's in pixel processing but they are efficient in handling workloads and are not restricted in to a single type of shader program per pipeline. Xenos's daughter die is a special type of "intelligent memory" that contains 192 pixel processors as well as logic for extremely high bandwidth framebuffer needs, such as tiled rendering and antialiasing. -Processor *both consoles have a formidable CPU, with the exception that CellBE will always need to work with RSX to make up for RSX's poor vertex performance. PS3: CellBE, a single dual-threaded PPE and its 8 subordinate SPE units, clocked at 3.2Ghz. one of the 8 is in use by the OS, the 8th is locked. 2 PPE threads plus 6 SPE threads equals 8 threads of execution. SPEs are fed work from the PPE through the EIB, which means developers have to tailor PS3 games to use those SPEs effectively. Xbox 360: Symmetrical triple dual-threaded cores, clocked at 3.2Ghz. 2 threads per core, 3 cores equals 6 threads of execution. All cores are independent from each other, all threads are immediately available as long as developers build their game engine for multithreading. Carmack knows all this :)
Well, I don't like having multiple discs to be honest. I know it's not the end of the world to chnage discs but, like any machine , the more moving parts the more there is to go wrong-and specifically my 360 still scratches the odd disc. Annoyingly so do my kids so the option of a single disc is attractive to me as long as the game is comparable-it could just end up saving me money! That said, I really don't think having to change discs, in itself, is a big issue and not one most people should jude which system they get a game for. As far as Rage goes I think it' pretty poor of ID all round. First they couldn't find a way to fit the full game on two discs(DVD) so everyone gets a reduced experience because of it(and presumably because of MS royalty charges on games with more than two discs)and now they expect PS3 only gamers to swallow a crappy below par framerate? When opther developers can manage a decent above 30FPS why can't ID? I like the look of the game and I would have got the PS3 version given a choice of comparably performing games but seeing as they can't manage a decent (i.e one managed by many other developers on the platform)framerate I'll have to see how much I can install at one go for PC as I don't want to risk multiples on my 360-purely because of previous scraching issues I always install what I can for every platform now. Whatever, it's a poor show from a developer of ID's rep to be so poor on the PS3-were they too proud or too dim to ask for help if they were having difficulties? TBH I exected a much better show from them than to offer sub par performance to PS3 only gamers afte already cutting down the whole game for a reason nothing to do with said platform. Pretty crappy show all round from where I'm sitting-if they can't even get two thirds of the original game to work on PS3 why moan about cutting it back in the first place? And if they aren't going to bother getting it right for PS3 why should PS3 gamers bother buying it? Obviously we'll have to see how it turns out but a discrepency like this doesn't fit into the usual kind of stuff that you don't ever notice during games-a bad framerate is unforgivable, imo.
Im getting the 360 version no doubt! Swapping discs 4 times = 40 seconds. Thats less than those mandatory installs for PS3 games plus we get a smoother framerate!
cookies for all?
i know man... but still a 20 to 30 fps on one console is really bad when other version are running at 60 ... weather its coz of hardware limitations or pragammming issues ... its no good look i admit it.... i hate them ... the sdf and every sony loving and 360 bashing mofo here on n4g ... i really do .... but there are some true honest gamers that are ps 3 only owners and they deserve better ... come on
I won't be getting this game since I'm not a huge fan of the genre, but if I had to choose, I'd choose neither option. I would have chosen to have the FULL game that it was supposed to be, but can't because of Microsoft's moronic business decisions and price gouging. But that's just me. Have fun with the 2 maps spread across 2 discs. Who cares about framerates when the game is lacking in content?
Why do we think that just because a developer is able to program better for the 360 that the 360 is then superior? Who are we kidding? I am good at fixing my own car ( an old 98 bmw) but that doesn't mean that i could work on a ferrari!
"Why do we think that just because a developer is able to program better for the 360 that the 360 is then superior?" It lets them justify their purchase, and ignore Killzone2 & the Uncharteds of the world, which the 360 has no technical competing titles to match. So it pretty much is the only way/only thing they can compare. Multiplatform games. Why they don't understand that people aren't PRO's with PS3 code is still beyond me, when the developers say it themselves. They take everything as fact that a dev says, GPU this GPU that, but when they say the PS3 is harder to develop for... Look a blurry texture, bwuuahaha!
All I can think of on this news is how different The Orange Box came out on PS3 as opposed to PC or Xbox360. I mean, come on, the makers of Windows made Xbox360, so it's going to be much easier to move a PC-based engine onto the Box. id and Valve make PC games. The consoles are typically a money-making afterthought. They're not interested in optimizing the thing for Cell - they could, but it would cost an arm and a leg in staff money. Basically, if you're looking at PC games that are easily ported to 360 and aren't so easily ported to PS3, don't just say "Haha, 360 is more powerful." This is a developer's good business choice, not a test of the Cell. If you've got a PS3 and a good PC, you're golden! If you have a crap PC, get a 360 and play that version.
Who said the rage engine was a BMW? maybe it's a ENZO.
I'll have another reason to flex the twin GeForce GTX 275's I have in my rig.
well if the developers dont make a game that is equal in quality(on the ps3/360 version), i just dont buy it. not even for my 360(slpknt1 psn/xbl) to the people who think i dont own a 360 or ps3. and to the people saying "What game does the 360 even have that looks better than MGS4"(killzone or uncharted), need to remember they (the 360 owners)are wearing their green goggles so they will disagree no mater what.
I guess Carmack isn't the "genius" that we all thought he was. BTW, Carmack has yet to release a game that is even worth purchasing. Im sorry but Doom, Quake, and whatever crap he made before sucked! Honestly, Rage doesn't look as good as everyone hypes it up to be.
" edit: N4F News 4 Fanboys." After reading what you just said i would say the Irony has stolen the show today. Well played!
Dk y people saying 30fps locked sucks cus doesnt killzone 2 have the same setting and has no lag ? I hope rage has the same visuals as kz2 and a lot of things happening at the same time, cus if it doesnt then.. well you get the point right ?
It still amazes me that fanboys on here still believe that multiplat games are the proving ground for a consoles "power". Which in turn makes this whole article nothing but flamebait, and seeing who contributed to this lovely news it's obvious this was posted to get a rise out of people. Last time I checked I don't remember the game ever being finished. I've yet to decide what console to get this game on and to be honest I really don't care. PS3 has already proved just what it can do with games and how amazing they are. Not going to bother defending something so meager. If developers decide to get more out of one version of a game rather than equal both then why bother? Whatever though, it's a damn shame they don't take the time to get to know new tech and learn how to optimize it's power.
Everything so far indicates that equal effort on both PS3 and 360 yields considerably better result on the 360. Good news is, once the infrastructure is built you are no longer limited by it. Just put more effort into the PS3. I think that is why we now consistently see multi-platform games perform more or less equally on either console.
Close to the PC version as possible - doesn't mean - in every respect. If for example graphic fidelity will suffer at 60fps, but improve at only 20-30fps... which trade-off would be the better choice? Which choice would best fit - the close to the PC version as possible - statement? --- > But they stated for the PS3 version they started on PC and are building the rest of the game up specifically for the PS3 (this was in another article not GI), and that the PS3 version of the game would most likely have better lighting, better textures, and more things going on screen at once due to the extra processing power, and not having to switch multiple disc for the game. I haven't seen any article ever stating that > the PS3 version would most likely have better lighting or more things going on at once due to the extra processing power. If you can find a link - that would be something. --- "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that. "The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said. --- Also - for those that can't remember large numbers - the 360 version will release on TWO discs... not more than that. Just TWO... And - BTW - Rage is not a sandbox game.
Burnout was at least the same,if not better.The devs even told people to play it on PS3.Still waiting for a 360 game that comes close to matching PS3 exclusives for technical quality.
To the idiot who said the pc version will be 25GB, WTF have you been smoking? Unlike consoles, PC's are faster at extracting compress files from the HDD and storing it in the RAM..... No way that pc games are at 25GB after install most are around 7-14gb. Only MMO's with their patches goes over 25GB and that's only sometimes.... And PC won't have a "60fps" lock on it, it will depend on your hardware. some might run it well over 60fps(depends on if you have vsnyc on or off) and some might run it at 30fps... LoL at delusion xbox fanboys who thinks their version is actually the "best"...... EDIT: @the moron who said "He said 360 has a faster GPU. So much for the PC and PS3 versions being the top dogs as PS3 fans have been saying." "FACE PALM" dude plz learn to read your own sources he said the 360's GPU is better then the ps3's GPU (which is very debatable) dosen't say sht about the PC's GPU......
Correct me if I'm wrong. But can't you install the game on the 360 HD? Which would basically get rid of load time and disk swapping.
I can't believe people are debating and arguing back and forth about a game we all know next to nothing about other than it having new texture technology and it's created by Carmack. Now on to Carmack. Nobody give me any grief for what I am about to say because I doubt anyone here has played more ID games or as long as I once did. I use to be a mainstream PC gamer and I played Quake 1 through 3 for nearly 7 years straight. It was all I did and practically the only games I played. I even went to and competed in two Quake Con events (Big deal I know but I am just throwing that out there). John Carmack has "never" made a game for a gaming console that was (how I hate to use this term but I no so many on here live by it) a "AAA title". So with that said why are you guys having a pissing contest over this engine and title? How many times have we heard X engine or game was going to redefine gaming as we know it? Sorry but I am taking a huge wait and see approach until we know a h3ll of a lot more then we do already regarding this title and engine. The bottom line is it will run best on a PC and if you really want to enjoy ID games to their fullest that is the format you should purchase it for. Me personally, and if I am being totally honest, I doubt this game will be anything but another meh experience from Carmack. I hope he proves me wrong because I will humbly eat crow pie but I am not going to grab a fork and napkin anytime soon and I doubt I will have to. Some of you people need to stop living in the past. Just because someone is a genius with code doesn't make him a good "game" designer. Yeah Carmack basically created FPS shooter genre but what was the last title that took over competitive PC gaming? Seriously, ID games are now on the bottom end of top tier titles in PC gaming. I have yet to see a title from ID or Carmack that makes me want to break out my wallet and purchase a high end gaming PC. BTW this game is still has a LONG way to go before it hits any format so take what is being reported now with a big grain of salt. I highly doubt most of us will care much about this game by the time it hits retail but don't let me stop you from slinging mud back and forth at one another. Carry on!
I wonder if it's possible to get a multi-disk game installed to the hard drive on 360 and have it merely verify off the first disk. Of course, the amount of space needed to install a 4 disk game would break those with a 20 gig. Honestly, if you have a 20 gig, it's time to upgrade. You don't have to pay the exorbitant price Microsoft asks. There is always ebay. I have a 60 gig just sitting in my closet because, long story short, I got it out of my warranty replacement with best buy. I know the 120 gig is expensive, but it's worth it to have the extra space, so I paid the asking cost. So quickly do people forget we used to pay a $ a gig...
Doesn't matter what platform you get this game on. Because it is looking like it is gonna be a sh!t load of fun no matter what! I, of course, will be getting this game for my PC.
It's just one part of the GPU. The PS3 and 360 GPU have different strengths with one having some advantages over the other in different areas. Here are some of the other sources of performance bottlenecks. I've broken it down based on three different programming models to help you understand why some developers get better performance from the 360 while others get better performance from the PS3. Traditional Pipeline: Largely unidirectional PC programming model with minimal CPU optimization. CPU (360) Geometry Transfer (PS3 using HDD) Geometry Processing (360) Rasterize (360) Fragment processing (varies) Framebuffer Ops (360) Texture Ops (varies) Traditional Pipeline with Multi-core: largely unidirectional PC programming model but designed for standard multi-core processors. CPU (varies) Geometry Transfer (PS3 using HDD) Geometry Processing (360) Rasterize (360) Fragment processing (varies) Framebuffer Ops (360) Texture Ops (varies) Cooperative Model: Frequently bi-directional where CPU and GPU coprocess graphics enabled by significant optimization for the CPU. CPU (PS3) Geometry Transfer (PS3) Geometry Processing (PS3) Rasterize (PS3) Fragment processing (PS3) Framebuffer Ops (PS3) Texture Ops (PS3) You'll notice that when the programming model is evolved to a truely cooperative model that the PS3 outperforms the 360 in every area. This is not because the PS3's GPU gets magically much faster. Graphics rendering has a lot of repetitive work but, by using the Cell processor's SPUs to preprocess and cut out much of that repetitive work, the PS3's GPU has much less work to do than the 360's GPU. Because of the separate high bandwidth connection between the Cell and the GPU the SPUs are then used for a lot of frame-buffer effects. That's why games like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, GT5: Prologue, Infamous, etc... are possible on PS3 and are able to draw comparisons, not just with other console games, but high powered PC games running the latest hardware.
if you actually listen to the devs and do your research, you won't end up looking like a complete idiot; like hiphopflammer.
The rage engine isn't the old BMW, the 360 is, which means the PS3 is the Ferrari. Both good cars, but developed for in different ways.
The PS3 CPU has much more raw horsepower than the 360. They said the GPUs are have about the same shader "power" despite having different strengths. They said that their engine pushed the 360's CPU to the limit using multi-threading but, on the PS3, only use 1.5 out of the 6 SPUs. Compare that with Carmack's comments and it's clear that his team is not really leveraging the power of the SPUs. His loss.
"thanks to id being able to squeeze the gigantic shooter onto a single-player Blu-ray disc, compared to Xbox 360's four DVDs" This game is that big? Oh and they better not let this run at a sub 30fps.