Why The Ps3 (Not The Xbox 360) Is The King Of Super Consoles

ItProPortal: For all that it is worth, the announcement that a team of scientists at the University of Warwick managed to run scientific applications on the Xbox 360 could be seen as a non-event.

For the power really resides with the Sony's Playstation 3 gaming console as far as theoretical figures are concerned. The Xbox 360 is powered by a Xenon processor which has three cores - with a combined theoretical peak performance of 115.2 GFLOPS - and is based on IBM's PowerPC; surprisingly, the Xenon is related to the Sony's Playstation 3.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Gabe EatsWell3710d ago (Edited 3710d ago )

PS3 is the future and the future is PS3.
It only does EVERYTHING!
@Below: Sorry. I will, do not worry. :)

Zedux3710d ago

Gabe I agree with you but all you write everywhere is that please add some more content to your posts!

Back on track the PS3 was like the girl next door, the most beautiful girl you had ever seen but that football player in his Corvette had her every night so you were left but lying to yourself she was not that much! NOW she comes and knocks on your door asks you to take her for a ride and suddenly tells you to stop and *boom* there you are lucky boy!
Many people hated the PS3 because it was for few but once the price dropped you were all over it! ;)

N4G king3710d ago

"The combined 38 thousand active PS3 consoles reached 1.08 PetaFLOPS. In comparison, the combined performance of nearly 225,000 Windows PCs only scored 213 TeraFLOPS."

now thats POWER

Microsoft Xbox 3603710d ago

The Cell is a supercomputer beast.

SixZeroFour3710d ago

just wondering, cause im not too tech/computer savy...but is that the same thing as saying 38 ps3's crunched more numbers that 225 pc's? or is there an actual difference?

btw i dont exactly know what a flop is (besides fanboys term for a failed if anyone would like to summarized what it is or what it means that would also be appreciated (but if not, ill just google it later)

Rofflecopter3710d ago

Gabe, you crack me up every time I log in here.

On topic: I thought it was widely accepted that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, just as the X-box was more powerful than the PS2. As far as I knew, it was just fanboys that didn't believe it. Even Microsoft never said that the 360 was more powerful (to my knowledge anyway). Aside from power though, its the games that tends to draw me to a console by the end of a generation.

MNicholas3710d ago

The article should have really been about why a researcher would hack the 360 GPU to run simulations when there are simpler, cheaper, faster, and legally accessible alternatives for GPGPU applications.

Any non-slim PS3, for example, would be cheaper, allows plug and play networking, effortlessly swappable industry standard hard-drives, and a faster available programmable processor.

The 360 is a very bad option for research. You have to hack just about every aspect of it from the os to the hard-drive to make it do anything other than what Microsoft wants you to do with it. What's worse, after all that effort, it's not all that fast.

Real Gambler3710d ago (Edited 3710d ago )

"is that the same thing as saying 38 ps3's crunched more numbers that 225 pc's? or is there an actual difference?"

Answer: NO

"38 thousand active PS3 consoles reached 1.08 PetaFLOPS. In comparison, the combined performance of nearly 225,000 Windows PCs only scored 213 TeraFLOPS.""

38 PS3 = 1.08 TeraFlop
225 PC = .212 TeraFlop
So actually, 38 PS3 does as much calculation as 1000 PCs

Flop: floating point operations per second (number of operations a CPU or GPU can do in one second)
Tera: 1000000000000
Peta: 1000000000000000

So one TeraFlop 1000000000000 floating point operations per second. So basically, 38 PS3 working together can do 1080000000000 floting points calculations per second.

Basically: That's a lot of calculations. And they don't blow out doing that!

ThanatosDMC3710d ago

How are they gonna spin this one? Teh sales says otherwise???

droid and bot3710d ago


look at #17
he got a hella of a spin

Raz3710d ago

..too bad this announcement is a little premature, like Bush declaring victory in Iraq.

And although in my heart of hearts the PS3 PWNS - I can't imagine having anyone 'win' the console war would be in gamers' best interests. We need healthy competition to drive innovation, or the zaibatsus will get complacent.

SixZeroFour3710d ago

but thats what im saying 38ps3's crunch "more" numbers than 225pc's

1000pc's > 225pc's so it is still the same thing

what im just getting at is why did they have to compare 38"k" ps3's to 225"k" pc's when they could have just used lower numbers "38 ps3's to 225 pc's" to make the same point unless there was a difference with it being higher

either way, thats some impressive power

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3710d ago
Gabe EatsWell3710d ago

Because PS3 is the home of epic exclusives like the AAAA game Unrivaled 2. Meanwhile the failbox only has FAIL-O STD.

3710d ago
El Botto3710d ago

- superior hardware power
- superior space capacity
- superior multi media functionality
- Blu Ray
- Aggressive expanding game library of all genres

Need I say more, it only does EVERYTHING.

PWNE xbots. PWNED.

Saaking3710d ago

Because it only does everything.

ShadowCK3710d ago (Edited 3710d ago )

One word: LOL.

The Xbox 360 crushes the PS3 in near every aspect. The 360 IS effectively the more powerful machine. The top performance of the two consoles is very similar, but the 360 is much more efficient and easier to get good performance out of.

All reliable sources have told us the two consoles are very close in power. From the lead engineer of the two CPUs to developers that have worked on both platforms.

Did you guys read the Digital Foundry interview at Eurogamer with Tobias Berghoff who is the director of PS3 development for the game Sacred? He explained that the optimal performance for both consoles is surprisingly close, but that the 360 tends to give better performance in general. Here is a piece of that interview:

-Digital Foundry: Your game is 'Full HD' on both 360 and PS3 with similar performance levels at 1080p... is it therefore safe to say that the rendering power available to you is approximately the same on both platforms? If not, is there any danger that third-party developers are favouring 720p in some cases simply to ensure platform parity?

- Tobias Berghoff: I usually put it like this: The optimal solutions for both platforms are usually surprisingly equal in performance (Hold it, fanboys! I'm not done!). For everything else, it's reasonably fast on the Xbox and absolutely horrible on the PS3.

What he is saying here is that when you get things running optimally on the PS3 its performance is very similar to the 360 running optimally, but that short of getting optimal performance out of the PS3, rendering performance tends to be significantly faster on the 360 than on the PS3.

The Xbox 360 gets more and more AAA hits every year, the PS3 continues its lame duck status with endless mediocre titles that fail to resonate with the public due to the inferior quality of Sony titles. Nobody wants to play games like Uncharted, Killzone or Infamous when compared to the hottest Xbox 360 exclusives that come out every holidays.

The PS3 is dying fandroids, and its because of the PS3's inferior architecture and Sony's inherent inability to provide games that people actually want to play for the system.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3710d ago
Nelson M3710d ago

And Bow to The King of Consoles The PS3

And Then Get on all Fours and Take it up the Ass From Microsoft

Thy Silly Little BoTs

RedPawn3710d ago (Edited 3710d ago )

You talk about fukn LAME, boy I tell you, for as bad as most people try to make it seem like Sony lost Teh console WAR, their gaming devision continues to outshine the competition.

I guess for a select few, Sony has hurt your feelings that bad because they still excel where it counts.


THC CELL3710d ago

*runs and sells my xbox*