Top
980°

Carmack: PS3 has more raw performance than Xbox 360

id Software co-founder and chief software architect John Carmack has said that the PS3 has more raw performance than the Xbox 360, but it does come at a cost: it's harder to develop for.

"Now the PS3 in particular, and this has been passed over many times over the years, but the core architectural decisions of having the cell processors versus additional symmetric processors makes life more difficult, unquestionably it’s harder to develop for those there," Carmack told Nowgamer. "You have to use a separate tool chain, the debugging is crappier, and all this. The upside of that is, there is more raw performance for computing there than there is on 360."

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
WetN00dle692438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

Yeah not bad of an article IF it wasnt old news. We all know that the PS3 has more Raw performance power BUT its minimal or so Carmack has said before.

Shaman2438d ago

Yea,I thought I saw this last year but it wasn't full interview.

ABizzel12438d ago

Someone only used this part of the interview in a previous article to start a fanboy war,

""The PS3 is still far and away better than anything else that’s ever been made... except maybe the 360," he added. "It’s a great time to be a developer. It’s not like working with the SEGA Saturn or the PS2, where these are really kind of quirky, cranky, architectures that are not, well, architected, I would say."

Which thankfully a fan war didn't erupt, thanks to neutral people like myself hitting the story first. Now after seeing the full interview, it's sad that some people stoop so low just for hits.

captain-obvious2438d ago

this guy needs to make up his mind already

Shadow Flare2438d ago

At the end of the day, look at the quality of exclusive games produced on each console. PS3 exclusives are always that step ahead of 360 exclusives in terms of tech prowess. The best of GT5 looks nothing short of photo realistic, killzone 3 looks better then any 360 shooter and 360 titles are still trying to catch up to uncharted 2 standards. Bring on uncharted 3

gypsygib2438d ago

@ captain-obvious:

He means PS3 is easier to develop for than anything before except the 360.

The previous article must have been selected by a fanboy because it left out the part of PS3 having more raw power taking the, "The PS3 is still far and away better than anything else that’s ever been made... except maybe the 360" completely out of context.

360 easier to develop for
PS3 more raw power, easier to develop for than previous gens but harder than 360.

Blaine2438d ago

These annoying PC fanboys won't ever let up, will they?

Hey, Commander, let me know when you can play first-party Sony games on your PC.

kyl2772438d ago

Hey, Blaine, let me know when you finally grow up and realise that games don't need to be exclusive to be great.

BloodyNapkin2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

Hey, kyl277, let me know when you finally grow up and realise that first party Sony games are excellent exclusives. If you would have played some you would have known this by now.

afterMoth2438d ago

Hardware or software, or talent from the developers. The results are there to see and that is the PS3's best are leagues above the 360 and Wii's best.

Ducky2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

@BloodyNapkin

"let me know when you finally grow up and realise that first party Sony games are excellent exclusives"

So what?
He never said the exclusives weren't great.
He simply said that a game doesn't have to be exclusive to be great.

You don't have much of a retort there.

goosepoose2438d ago

Thanks carmack and nw we know the reason why the 360 verisoin going to look inferior/s. We heard this story a million times doesnt need to be confirmed by anyone anymore

ButterBomb2438d ago

AB: Gaming journalism lost what little integrity it had years ago. Not sure what you expected? Truth and facts or maybe the whole story? Nah, won't find that.

http://forum.teamxbox.com/s...

Carmack: "PS3 Better Than Anything... Except maybe 360"

I just hope the guy stops talking and delivers a game that isn't gimped on either system. This talk just makes me want to skip it, much like the fanbois/devs ruined Crysis 2 with all their half truth BS about which version is best. As soon as I start reading crap like this it's usually a sign things are going to disappoint.

starchild2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

He is talking about the CPU. If you have listened to or read any of his other interviews on the subject, he makes it clear that the 360 has a more powerful GPU and more available RAM. He also makes it clear that the advantage in the CPU is mostly a theoretical advantage that is very difficult to leverage in the real world. http://gamevideos.1up.com/v...

All in all the 360 is more powerful in some areas and the PS3 is more powerful in some. I will say, though, that Sony generally does a much better job of taking advantage of their hardware than Microsoft does. It's all up to the effort put into the games and the talent of the developers that make them.

Edit: It's just sad that people disagreed with Commander_TK's comment. It's the absolute truth, the PC does destroy both. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, but it won't change the truth.

And before anybody says "we're not denying it, we're just sick of hearing about it", well too bad. You guys are all a bunch of hypocrites. Do you think Wii and 360 owners like to constantly hear about how the PS3 is "soooo much more powerful"? That isn't even true, yet people have to constantly hear it. The PC does have far superior graphics than the consoles. People only point that out to give you console fanboys a little perspective.

DaTruth2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

"So what?
He never said the exclusives weren't great.
He simply said that a game doesn't have to be exclusive to be great."

The dude Kyl277 was replying to never said games had to be exclusive to be great; he simply said you can't play them on a PC! Come to think of it, he didn't even say exclusive, he said Sony first party!

Why did you choose him to correct when Kyl277's comment made no sense in the first place?

frostypants2438d ago

"And PC destroys both."

Depends on the PC, now doesn't it? The PC is not a single defined platform from a hardware perspective.

Ifone2438d ago

Starchild and all the delusional team, stop, its 2011, not 2006, and games are here to prove the obvious thing carmack is saying.

Gpu is almost the same, memory better on ps3 (same amount), and much better cpu usefull for graphics too ! (its the reason why year after year you can see better graphics on ps3, without competition on consoles)

AlienLion2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

I wonder if there is ANY topic that doesnt cause a fanboy conflict over whose joystick is bigger.

DualConsoleOwner2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

"PS3 is has three times the processing power of 360"
http://www.forbes.com/free_...

"GPU of PS3 and 360 is pretty similar"
http://gear.ign.com/article...

And PS3 has better ram as well. so your "more available ram" is confirmed BS.

its kinda sad that fanboys are denying this... but funny too.

Aquanox2438d ago

However the best looking console game ever is on Xbox 360 so...

JonnyTheMoney2438d ago

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

Conclusion: ... the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout.....

Here is the ranking.

Uncharted 2> God of War 3> Killzone 3> Crysis 2 Single Player Only

YodaCracker2438d ago

@JonnyTheMoney

So you're using an article that says Killzone 3 is the best looking console game to prove it looks better than Crysis 2, but then you list Uncharted 2 and God of War III as looking better than Killzone 3. Uh... logic fail?

Anyway, there is no denying that Crysis 2 is the best console game on a technical level. Almost all professional video game publications would agree. One may prefer Killzone 3's art direction, but Crysis 2 is doing more on a technical level than any other console game. And due to the fact that Crysis 2 runs at a higher resolution, and with a more steady framerate, on the Xbox 360, that means that the most graphically impressive console game so far this gen is indeed on the Xbox 360.

You are still free to think Uncharted 2, God of War III, and Killzone 3 look better, but that is only your opinion.

JonnyTheMoney2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

SubHD, bad frame rate hits, Screen tearing, bad textures, terrible AA, and etc
are not "technically" better... what you said is straight up idiotic.

Lens of Truth gone over this.. Killzone 3 is better looking "graphically" not by its artstyle...

Kinda sad fanboys are in such denial about this...

@Menech

Well, i think what DualConsole and IBM said is relevant..
Super computers are not built for gaming, but PS3 is...

And Carmack just confirmed that PS3 is more powerful plus tons of other sources, so where is the argument coming from??

Menech2438d ago

@DualConsoleOwner

Yeah it's pretty much confirmed the PS3 can push 3x more raw numbers then the 360 processor.

But a super computer can push 5000x more raw numbers then my PC and it's still shit at gaming.

Not that am saying the PS3 is a bad gaming machine it's not, am simply pointing out real world that IGN chart is useless.

wicko2438d ago

@Menech

Pretty much like any synthetic benchmark. But its pretty clear that 1st party developers have figured out how to make the cell work for them.

MaxXAttaxX2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

And the PS3 delivers with its games.

+ Show (22) more repliesLast reply 2438d ago
disturbing_flame2438d ago

but when it will be about using memory to turn the game it will be difficult for PS3.

I think Carmack will choose to make as many developers a sub HD game on PS3 to make the game turn as smooth as the 360 version.

kikizoo2438d ago

you obviously don't know what you are talking about, since ps3 has more 1080 games, and less "sub hd" games than xbox, and..most important, best graphics (even if 720P is here most of the time), so stop spreading lies.

Both consoles has 512 (256+256 for ps3), but ps3 has better/faster memory

Voxelman2438d ago

actually kikizoo the 360 has 522MB of RAM there is 10MB on the GPU...

WetN00dle692438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

360 has the same amount of ram as the PS3. This extra 10mb DRAM is used for anti-aliasing.

disturbing_flame2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

Ok we'll see if RAGE on PS3 have the same resolution.

It's been 5 years now that we see oftenly multiplatforms games turning in sub-hd on PS3. It's just facts.

We'll see for RAGE at what cost the game will turn the same way the other platforms do.

And by the way i didn't say the 360 had more memory than the PS3, i just suggest that devs have more difficulty to use it on PS3 due to the architecture of the machine. Anyway, news gonna still rain on N4g for this game.

can't wait to play it on my PC.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2438d ago
50Terabytespersec2438d ago

Yes this has all been discussed many years over.
Of course the games do speak for them selves.
Sub HD resolutions versus Native HD and the sheer amounts of Polygons! I.E, GT5, Uncharted, God Of War 3 and lets not talk about MLAA on KZ3 and GOW 3!

DrFUD2438d ago

WetN00dle69, so minimal that PS3's are linked together to form SUPERCOMPUTERS!

Aarix2438d ago

and yet they still dont play ps2 games.

Ravage272438d ago

i think he basically reconfirms what most of us have known for a long time now: The PS3 is simply a more powerful hardware compared to the 360.

On one hand, you have statements from industry veterans like Carmack and on the other, PS3 exclusives like GOW3,UC2 and KZ3. This should be more than enough to settle any debate.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2438d ago
Prcko2438d ago

best console on market!!!

theonlylolking2438d ago

That is a matter of opinion.

fact:The PS3 offers the most for the money

opinion:PS3 is the best(it is your favorite but that does not make it the best)

RyuCloudStrife2438d ago

its fact dont hate go hug your 360 to the corner of your basement

MRMagoo1232438d ago

If you look at it from a facts perspective via hardware software and applications PS3 is the best console on the market

forevercloud30002438d ago

Well actually....

"Best" is technically an opinion anyway. So to him, PS3 being the best IS a fact. Truth of the matter is Facts can be opinions and Opinions can be facts. If I give u an opinion of mine, that is indeed my opinion so if you were to repeat what my opinion was u would be factual.

The more you know :)

nycrekid2438d ago

In terms of games releasing this year it IS the best console on the market, unless of course you love casual stuff only.

Redgehammer2438d ago

All I know, is that I enjoy the hell out of my 360, and for me, it is the best console I have ever owned. I will never disparage the PS3; however, I have spent 30 minutes with one, and it failed to sway my predisposition to distrust and dislke Sony. However, I know the PS3 is the superior hardware, but even in the face of that, the scrappy inferior 360 still manages to deliver a high quality gaming experience. How it does it, I still don't know. It must be magic. Seriously, by so many accounts and conjectures, here on N4G, the 360 should be on its back in submission to the "big dog"", but instead the 360 is strong enough to still be in the conversation, to achieve parity with the venerable PlayStation. I would call that a success against the odds. Sadly, I already have more to look forward to than I have $$; so, I hope you have as much fun on your console of the year, as I do on mine.

DaTruth2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

So RROD didn't give you a predisposition to distrust and dislike MS? Windows Vista?

I'd wonder what even gave you a predisposition to distrust Sony? Was it there quality products? Great software for 15 years? Having owned four Sony gaming consoles and and a range of Sony electronics including two HDTV's and going all the way back to Walkmans, I'm predisposed to trusting Sony!

I've heard some bring up the laptop batteries, but as far as I know Sony doesn't produce batteries, just had a bad supplier.

MRMagoo1232438d ago

OMG you played it for a whole full 30mins and wherent swayed towards the ps3 with all your hands on testing of the best exclusives this gen on the ps3 you should write up a review as to why it isnt as good as the 360, ive played a 360 alot and there is nothing it does that makes me think the ps3 has it worse the 360 has no games any more and when it did have games they where halo or gears and i dont like either halo is for ppl that want a game more noob friendly than cod and gears is just bad full stop.

04soldier2438d ago

Intelligent bubs up. But what I don't understand your predisposition on not liking things SONY.

What happened, did a SONY employee piss in your fruit loops??

forevercloud30002438d ago

@Redge

Firstly, 30mins is not enough time to really formulate an opinion on anything. Second, what is there to distrust about Sony?(other than they are a giant corporation that is out for your money but thats all of them) And as far as why the 360 is a success....
1. It was first to debut with a one year head start.
2. It is cheaper. Cheaper to make and sells for less(certain skus).
3. MS's add campaign for it was all or nothing. When they started they basically declared war on sony in a marketing standpoint, pointing out any weakness for the system.
4. Moneyhatting: every big name developer to either renig on Exclusive deals with Sony or altogether keep games from the system for the first few years.
5. Sony was too confident in their brand loyalty and rested on their lorals in the beginning.
6. Stigma. Sony's starter prize point left a bad taste in many buyer's mouths and to this day many of them still believe the system to be exorbantly more expensive than 360 when in actuality it isn't. Much ignorance to the product's offerings due to Sony's lack of PROPER adverts. US totally favors MS because its a home grown company, similar to Sony in Japan. US is bigger tho so its at a much grander scale.

Yet anyone with a reasonable mind knows that one thing would have unraveled 360 completely. That thing is the head start. Without it I assure u 360 would be in 3rd again.

Redgehammer2437d ago (Edited 2437d ago )

30 minutes is plenty of time to know whether or not you like an inanimate object. If i got into a car to buy, I would know in 5 minutes whether or not the car was a fit for me. Why would a game console be different?
@DaTruth that may be your truth but my truth is completely different. BTW If you were smart you skipped Vista.
@04soldier it was Count Chocula
@MRMagoo123--whatever that is you wrote made me lol.. If like your PS3 that is awesome go play it.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2437d ago
BloodyNapkin2438d ago

This is really not a matter of opinion it really is fact.

I mean we can sit here an list stuff all day Bluray, games etc. But if you are not going to beleive then there is no use. People that has used both for amount of time can tell you clearly which is the better system without even batting a eye.

taylork372438d ago

I have had both since launch....and I still have trouble deciding which is better. Like most people have said...each one is good in its own right.

I do think that the PS3 is a better system all around, but not my much. How can a hands down best system have such a shitty XMB. The thing is a pain. If I have to synch my trophies one more F'in time I'm going to shoot myself.

jjank112438d ago

@taylork37.... I have also had both for a few years (neither since launch though). I now have both XBL Gold (which is a needed service) and PSN+ (as well as a steam account) and constantly play on both. I would have to say that if it was not for the extra year that Microsoft got on Sony, then the PS3 would be hands down, and clearly, the better console. But due to that extra year, Microsoft got to increase its user-base tremendously, and now most multiplatform games are mostly bought on the 360, only because my friends have only a 360. If this was not the case, I would easily own only PS3 games, Halo and Gears aside (Bioshock and Mass Effect are now on PS3, so I will be getting the next iterations on PS3).

I do have to agree that the XMB is not as good as the 360 Dashboard, but Sony is still playing catch-up and has been adding features. If they can reduce the load times of the XMB and trophy sync, I don't think it would be an issue. Especially considering the impending Google Chrome release on PS3.

I would have to say that the PS3 is really starting to distance itself from the 360, especially with PSN+ (something that has paid for itself twice over) and the amazing exclusives. If PS3 teams up with Google, this might be hard to beat out, but Microsoft does have the resources to go blow for blow. It'll be an interesting boxing match. Next Gen consoles will be incredible and might simply push home computing and PC gaming to the side, especially if consoles add productivity suites and have upgradeable parts. Its not far fetched to start seeing gaming consoles in the work place or gaming consoles being bought simply for PC uses.

sorry, I overdid this one

RevXM2438d ago

Taylor
I can understand trophy sync.
But the XMB IS near perfect IMO.
Its simplistic yet good looking and offers quick access to whatever.
Its like you need a map to navigate The dashboard. (not really, but its slightly more randomized kind of)

HOWEVER I got one big problem with XMB vs the dash.
Ingame the dash is slimmed down to available stuff only and let you do most things right away while the Ingame XMB loads for some seconds.

Hopefully Sony will release a overhaul of the entire OS, featuring a slimmed ingame menu.
Faster overall, auto background Trophy sync, NEW BROWSER, new Ingame universal music player, cross game chat, more customizable theme stuff choose any theme with any icons colour backgrounds or dynamic backgrounds you want.

Better video editor, MKV and proper GIF support, photo editor???? and ofc it will make stuff more smooth between STEAM and ps3 + the upcoming NGP.

Thats what Im hoping for atleast.

taylork372438d ago

@jjank

Its hard to argue with anything you say, but as it stand now, I do like the PS3 more, but it isn't a "hands down" situation.

If we are talking about the future that probably change....I'm speaking of the present tho.

Again, I am still going with PS3 as my favorite.

@Rev

I just have to disagree that the XMB is near perfect. IMO its far from perfect. But its the only thing that is pretty much not perfect on the PS3.

To add to my previous opinion on the trophy sync, you added the in game xmb. This is almost the same if not more of a pain than the trophy sync. It takes quite a long time once you hit the ps button to do anything. Trying to look at trophy's or look at friends is extremely annoying. I use the in game XMB constantly and it is a big problem. That's my main reason for giving the Xbox a huge edge in that respect.

"Hopefully Sony will release a overhaul of the entire OS, featuring a slimmed ingame menu.
Faster overall, auto background Trophy sync, NEW BROWSER, new Ingame universal music player, cross game chat, more customizable theme stuff choose any theme with any icons colour backgrounds or dynamic backgrounds you want."

You basically stated why it is far from perfect.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2438d ago
heylo2438d ago

there's a little difference between Sony and its studios claiming things like that and John Carmack, a pioneer of 3D visuals...

SuperSaiyan42438d ago

Yes its a known fact that the PS3 is capable of doing something like 2.9teraflops per second versus 360 at 0.8teraflops. But it's how you use that power, since the PS3's gpu is behind in technology vs the 360 gpu the PS3 makes up for the visuals via its cell processor so all in all both are pretty much on par.

Shaman2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

That teraflop thing is completely out of sanity.Thats according to some Nvidia crazy calculations for RSX having alon 1.8TFLOPS.I mean,cards like 4870HD have 2TFLOPS and they smoke both consoles put together and multiplied by five.

The real flops number are this.Cell-215GFLOPS(not TFLOPS),RSX 200GFLOPS(with clocked speed at 550mhz).

Xenon 115GFLOPS,Xenos 240GFLOPS.

NotSoSilentBob2438d ago

Take any card from 2005/06 and compare it then. Comparing the hardware from then to the hardware now of course you will get more from the newest tech.

Ducky2438d ago

^ His point was that those numbers rival modern cards... so they can't be right.

gamingdroid2438d ago

PC is a perfect example of how having more horsepower doesn't necessarily yield better result.

For gaming, it needs to have a balanced architecture that doesn't cause bottlenecks (practically almost impossible). You can ramble numbers the manufacturer gave you (based on their internal "unbiased" testing of course) and it wouldn't matter.

In addition, how the SDK are created (and what it exposes) shapes how you harness the hardware.

B1663r2438d ago

Now days it is all about the fill rate... The xbox has a higher fill rate than the ps3 (about 5% faster), but both are smoked by the fill rate on a modern video card. It is like 4 gigapixels on the consoles, and 40 gigapixels on on a modern pc video card...

While the PS3 has all that math co-processor power, we have repeatedly witnesses the limits of a single gp cpu core on ps3 titles... for example, the ps3 can't load a level at the same time it is playing a level or cut scene with the game engine, so they pre-render all the cut scenes and put the movies on the blue ray.

Generally the xbox has better level loading performance as a result... The xbox starts all the pre-computes as the level is loading, which is why the xbox has dramatically faster loading times...

All in all, if you want to talk about performance, you go to the PC...

But then the down side on the PC, which is market forces... Games just don't sell as well on the PC, so the PC is still getting console ports.

Maybe that will change over the next couple of years with Sandybridge CPU's and PCs will tend to have GPU's faster than the consoles... But that hasn't happened yet.

Sad but true, but in general the consoles have smoked the average PC until this year...

B1663r2438d ago Show
Masterchef20072438d ago

@B1663R
@5Oterabytepersec

Ok you 2 stop acting like children and be a little bit mature. Seriously dont you 2 have anything better to do than troll each other?

NotSoSilentBob2438d ago

Are you Jason Booth from Rockband creators? He tried to justify the 360 being "superior" threw fill rate and was torn apart for making BS up.

wicko2438d ago

"or example, the ps3 can't load a level at the same time it is playing a level or cut scene with the game engine, so they pre-render all the cut scenes and put the movies on the blue ray"

What, no. This is not a feature exclusive to PS3, 360 loads behind binks as well, assuming the developer has implemented loads this way. It's a common strategy (and a good one). If what you were saying were true, that would mean the PS3 would be unable to stream data during gameplay, which is false as you can observe this in many games.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2438d ago
units2438d ago (Edited 2438d ago )

guy cant make his mind up

Optical_Matrix2438d ago

Well, actually, he never said the 360 had more raw performance. He says he prefers developing for it, most likely because the architecture is more similar to what he's used to, and therefore less of a pain to programme for. What he' saying here though, is despite all that, PS3 just has more raw performance. Don't get it twisted.

Baka-akaB2438d ago

next thing you know , they'll call one of the few 3d gaming genius , and most eminent expert a hack ...

palaeomerus2438d ago

And the funny thing is that PS3 doesn't have much more raw (peak) perfo