lets get the battle on... who do you think is going to be on top? sales, graphics, quality of games and such
Well I've already heard one critic say that as far as cross-platform games are concerned, 360 has better graphics. I personally think Xbox is going to be the dominate system. The only thing I really feel the PS3 offers over Xbox are some of the titles (Final Fantasy and such).
well i'm partial to the xbox 360 b/c of the price mainly...i'm not into halo but what game has sony put out that even compares to how popular halo has been? maybe the grand theft auto games but i don't think they surpassed halo. that's all i can think of to say i'm not that knowledgeable about gaming so maybe i'm mistaken but still i choose xbox
I have the 360 personally and I have nto seen much that makes me want to rush out and grab a ps3. There are some great games on the 360. One thing I am disappointed in is that I am already getting some annoying glitches, but I did get the exchange warranty at BB.
Actually, the only title that I really want to play that's not on Xbox isn't one the PS3 offers either. I want a Wii just for Zelda
Allways been a PS snob(following Nintendo, Sega, Atari...)... Never really cared for XBox(hate the stupid-large controllers).. So, I will be purchasing a PS3 when it can be found in stores without fighting someone. To me(granted I've only played Forza once) that the Gran Turismo series would be enough to stick with PS by itself.... And I can't wait for the next Blood Omen/Legacy of Kain........
I was watching some show on spike I think. It was at the PS3 release party. The guy reluctantly said it. I don't he's saying that Xbox hands down has better graphics. Just that with most of the games that are on both systems, Xbox's was better. So it's not official or anything, but the guy was some kind of critic and it was on a show that was pretty much just singing the PS3's praises, so I feel there is probably some truth behind it. Edit: well I'm doing some reading now, and by a lot of cases it's the other way around. I know that PS3 has the capability to have better graphics than 360. But I guess until both systems are completely tapped into, it's just a pissing contest.
have u see the soecs of the grphisc card milo, the 360 jus has a better card . and it pretty much has 10 egs on DIE!
plennty of articles out ther conernign the GPU prof, heres an OK one http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?showtopic=112069
Well, launch titles are not a good indication of system capabilities. I dunno how long you've been playing video games but we can compare Super Mario Bros (one way scrolling, 3 music notes at once)to Super Mario Bros 3(scrolling in any direction almost, 4 music notes and sound sampled drum kit), and see a staggering difference in programming. Launch titles are an indication of which system is easier to develop for in a hurry. And lets not forget the 360 does have a year head start on it. the ps3 posseses more sheer mathematical potential than a 360. But then, that was true of the ps2 and the regular xbox too. Developing is key. The 360 is an in-order-execution only cpu system(which is really weird) with a triple core that has a shared cache on it, and shared 512 ram between system and graphics. The ps3 has cache on each one of the CELL processors and its 256meg ram is bus clocked with the cpu, and its 256 meg video ram is dedicated but it can back-door access system ram too. In theory, the 360 has more filter subprocessing in its graphics engine, stuff like FSAA, alpha channel effects, etc which means that 360 games will look more uniform to a certain output standard of quality. But the 360's odd core setup and shared cache means it won't be capable of maintaining massive environment or models in the same way. It has massive bandwidth, so using clever programming, it should be able to draw it quickly on the fly after it discards other data, then just flip the filter switch on at the end to get things glossy looking. In theory, the PS3's system archetecture has more in common with a purpose built super computer than any other video game or pc that has come before it. Its graphics engine, I believe focuses less on having filter effects and more on actual output drawing power and environment effects HDR lighting, Radiosity for light reflection on curved surfaces. Consequently, filters can be custom programmed by one of the CELLs and run in the background. This is incredible amount of freedom for a game maker to just write what they need, compared to the 360 which may have hardware dedicated to doing something that the game may never actually use. (this is almost exactly the same strength/weakness as the ps2 and xbox had with eachother):wavey: I think only the most anal (like me) will be able to tell a quality difference on cross platform titles once the PS3 has been out for a while when running the same resolutions...
well, its not even that im jsut saying the celll is gret for games, but when it comes to AI and cache intesive programming it sucks ass. http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm read that, its simple, xbox has a more powerful GPU, hell it gets 4x AA for FREE! due to the on die memory... orther than the its CPU and its cahche will handle physics operations better...
BTW .. the cell doenst have cache dfor the SPE jsut for its ONE normal CPU which is 512, so yeah doenst reall ymake a diff..
i personally think everyone is overating the cell arc, sure its great.but alot of it is unpracticle for MAJOR computing the low cache will KILLLL it 512k in a 7 core.. remmber they dont EACH ahev 512, the sps dont even have cache which works GREATTTTTT for streaming data such as games adn stuff but phyisc and AI which varsare resued alot.. no cashe is DEADLy as the article states. im ho in shear raw power the cell wins, but in gaming power and grpahics the 360 comes out on top
To correct you, yes, each SPE DOES have its own cache of 256K in addition to the PPE's 512k. They don't call it cache on the ps3('local store'), but it is clocked to the cpu, just like cache writes so it can be treated almost the same way. This means each processor can truly run independant programs without having to worry about bumping into another processor's thread in memory. Second the 360 doesn't have a 'more powerful' GPU, rather its GPU has some special effects on it that do nice things, like I said. ANti Aliasing and soforth are available at the flip of a switch. But just like the Xbox before, if you needed a different effect or more GPU power, it wont matter if you turn those features off. You can't reclaim that power to do something else. Also, the 360's GPU shares its RAM with the rest of the system, the ps3 has its own. Lastly, the you misunderstand the 10 megs on die. Its own internal operations are at 256gb/s, but if it has to talk to the GPU, then it slows down all the way to 32gb/s, and if it needs to hit the system ram, it drops down to 22gb/s... and if it has to get instructions or data read from CPU, it drops again to 10gb/s. The 360's GPU runs at 500mhz, and the ps3's runs at 700mhz. But those core clocks are also essentially meaningless. You also seem to be of a 'pc' mindset where such analyses is appropriate of the 360 and the original XBOX. But none of the Playstations have had practically ANYTHING in common with traditional PC tehnology so a direct archetectural comparison of them to most people's understood perception of a PC is useless. You'll notice that a serious difference in computers comes when you stop measuring certain parts of the system bandwidth-per-second as a measure of system performance, and when you move to measuring it in completed OPS, which is what purpose built super computers are typically guaged in. As for the article, the author mistakenly says the 360 has 3 cpus. It doesnt, it has one cpu with 3 cores with a shared cache, but what is important in what he said was "...CPU’s the xbox360 has are currently far easier..." Currently meaning that for him its current. For people deeply immersed in Assembly Language or in truely symmetrical processing concepts(which the author may or may not be) the PS3 has far more unlockable potential. The author seems to have holdover opinions that the same arguements from the ps2 will holdover to a PS3, and juding from his tone, he's clearly more of a 'pc minded' developer so his persepctive affords him some scrutiny. He does get some points correct, especially about the 360 getting a head start. If you were a game company needing to make money, would you develop for the console with 800,000 units out there? or the one with only 400,000? But he's mistaken about the developer tools for the 360 being more popular. Thats only true in America, and therefore American games(which depending on your tastes may be good or bad). And there is one huge major difference that he's overlooking; developing for the PS3 is essentially free. Except for a development kit hardware, the entire programming standards that the PS3 uses are all GPL, GNU, or Open Sourced. All the development documents from Toshiba, Ibm. and Sony are free and opensourced. Also, the CELL is being used in other things, like HD TVs, Blade Servers for server farming, General purpose render farms, cheap supercomputer clustering; and all the documentation from those things are available to PS3 development too. Nothing else uses the 360 archetecture. I stand by my original statement, that launch titles are an indicator of which system is easier to program for in a hurry. Once the ps3 has a year in, it will be difficult to tell the difference in cross-platform games, or even similar genre games unless you're really anal and know what to look for. The 360's strength is that all basically have to do to get a clean filtered look is to turn them all on. The PS3 doesn't have those things automatically, but each SPE can be used to run a customised filter of far greater complexity that whats available on the 360. And not just filters, but any custom program. Of course, none of this means anything if the machine doesnt have games you wanna play.
RSX GPU 550 MHz Independent vertex/pixel shaders 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance) 300M transistors 136 "shader operations" per clock The interesting ALU performance numbers are 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance), 300M its 550 mhz
im not enitrely sure, but form what ive read online most peple say the shrea capability of the GPU 360 wins
Please tell me your just copying and pasting this information. Because if not, you guys know entirely too much about this.
Xbox 360 vs. PS3 There are three critical performance aspects of a console: * Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance: The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell. Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors. * Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance: The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance. * Memory System Bandwidth: Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth. When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment. However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.
I've been a student of computer/console engineering since the Z80 and Pac-man. ;p I kinda geek out on knowing the archetectural decisions placed in building a SNES versus a Genesis and soforth. I've seen all the points that NV raises before, and despite sounding like a PR release from a Microsoft executive(nudge nudge ) they are all points shared typically by people who are most familiar with PC x86 and directX game development. The fact is, however, outside of North America, the programming skills of people are not limited to .Net, C# and Visual Basic. And also, measuring the bandwidth of only one section of the system is not a good indicator of performance. Like I said before, the 278gb/s of memory bandwidth you're quoting is only on the GPU between the GPU processor, and the 10 megs of ram on the die for the 360. The regular ram bandwidth is only 22gb/s between the GPU and regular ram, and only 10gb/s between the CPU and everything else. You can read the Anandtech article he linked and come to the same conlusion as I did, Launch titles only show which one is easier to develop for in a hurry(which means the 360), and despite being a heavy PC-based editorial, they acknowlege the overall lack of programmer talent and familiarity with truely multithreaded game programs. Except that this article is old and: ...this is extremely out-dated information. the article was written in June of 2005... which was after the 360 was out but before mass production of the PS3 evan began. The PS3's RSX is running at 700mhz now, and had some other archetectural changes. You wanna hear something funny? The people who will be able to milk the most out of the PS3 aren't going to be ps2 developers, i think. It will be people who developed for the Sega Saturn which was the first multi-central processor console. :wiggle: The Hitachis that ran in it are scalable in a similar sense to the CELL.
XBox 360 FTW....My friend Rod Moye is a Line Producer for EA Sports in Orlando...I guess I am a bit biased....LOL...I like the PS3 from what I have read and heard too... Mark