Side By Side Comparasion, 360, ps3

[KINGOFNOOBS]

http://www.bigkid.com.au/2005/05/17/xbox-360-vs-ps3

Discuss

[hyakku]

This has been done how many times.....?

You could have found these anywhere...


Anyway devs agree that the TFlops is just e peen waving crap, the 360 and PS3 will be almost equal in power, the PS3 having a slight edge, but the 360 being MUCH easier to develope for. Which would you rather have 10-20 extra percent that most won't even notice? Or being 20% easier to design for that will make games come out that much quicker and cheaper?

[KINGOFNOOBS]

i know, but with all the "fanboyism" today i think we should bring it up again

[hyakku]

Well it doesn't matter either way both should be good, but PS3 might have a rocky start with the heatsink issues, BRD problems, and its complexity, but it should balance out eventually.

[lmunz22]

What is with the crappiest comparison shot that I have ever seen??? It's completely wrong!

[comradx]

from what most tech sites/devs have said, the cell in ps3 isnt catering towards gaming apps at all. some even say they feel the xenon may have teh edge in gaming apps. seeing as the gpu in 360 is most likely suprerior, i still find it hilarious everyone assumes ps3 has any sort of an edge. BR doesnt equal power by any means. at BEST for sony, ps3 is on par with 360 performance on both ends. its about teh dev tools and how easy it is to program for. and sony has already lost that battle long ago.

for right now, the raw power in the cpu is in sony's favor, tho so far everyone is still very skeptical to see if that means anything for games. and the gpu is in 360's favor. seemingly at least on both fronts.


just saw the size comparison. WHOAAAA!!!! how the hell cna this guy NOT find the physical measurements for 360 and ps3? they were passed around all over the net at e3 and are on xbox.com im pretty sure. what a joke of an article.

[aasp]

I think xbox 360's better, I don't like the ps3

[hefehefe2000]

Originally Posted by aasp

I think xbox 360's better, I don't like the ps3

When did you get to play the PS3?

P.S. I dont like Mongolian food. Though i have never had it.

[vecha]

man...Mongolian food is awesome...you should try it..lol

but on topic...

You can't say so much about the console without seeing the games one them...

i really don't think we will "see" much of a difference on games...though...never know...

[Ztype]

Well truthfully if you say the PS3 has a slight edge over Xbox360 you'd be sorely mistaken. At full potential the PS3 is light years ahead of Xbox360. The cell alone can do things that normally take an entire array of hardware. Obviously it's difficult to maximize the hardware so it's somewhat of a moot point, but I sincerely doubt it's very difficult to use partial amounts of the hardware considering there's more games in development for PS3 than there are for Xbox360.

Does it really matter? Not really, because both Gamecube and Xbox are more powerful than PS2, yet they're tanking in comparison. It's the games that matter not the spec wars. Power doesn't matter unless there are good games that can tap it.

[MasterMagneto]

What does this mean to me? Nothing. Dont care how powerful it is, if it looks alright graphically im good, hell im good with current gen graphics. What would sway me in either direction, is a side by side GAME comparision, because in the gaming world, all that matters to me are games. Not the power, not the clicks and whistles. Games. Those things matter dont get me wrong, but nowhere near as much.

[vecha]

Light years? what is the processing power? powerful then 3.2 GHZ?

I highly doubt we will see any difference in this "light years ahead" power.

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by vecha

Light years? what is the processing power? powerful then 3.2 GHZ?

I highly doubt we will see any difference in this "light years ahead" power.

Read my post carefully. I said it's light years ahead, which it is in hard numbers, but that's the theoretical power that probably won't be maximized until 2007-8.

[comradx]

Originally Posted by ztype85

Well truthfully if you say the PS3 has a slight edge over Xbox360 you'd be sorely mistaken. At full potential the PS3 is light years ahead of Xbox360. The cell alone can do things that normally take an entire array of hardware. Obviously it's difficult to maximize the hardware so it's somewhat of a moot point, but I sincerely doubt it's very difficult to use partial amounts of the hardware considering there's more games in development for PS3 than there are for Xbox360.

Does it really matter? Not really, because both Gamecube and Xbox are more powerful than PS2, yet they're tanking in comparison. It's the games that matter not the spec wars. Power doesn't matter unless there are good games that can tap it.

oh lord....first off, the ps3 hardware, in terms of GAMING APPS, is NOT anywhere near "light years ahead". get that ignorant concept out of your noggin right now buster. at full potential in gaming-related performance, the 2 are pretty much identical. yes, even on paper GASP! ps3 has a slightly better cpu for gaming, yet 360 has the better gpu. i say slightly better for the cell vs xenon b/c the design of 360 is VASTLY superior to the design of the ps3. im referring to the engineering here btw.

you also claim xbox is "tanking in comparison"? wtf? look at the groups of best rated games for each genre on gameranking.com. a LOT are xbox and xbox exclusives at that. look at the game of the year winners each year for consoles...and xbox game has won EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE IT RELEASED! yet i guess you still will try to claim the best games are on ps2...lol.

the 360 has one MAJOR advantage over ps3 in terms of performance, that being the ease of dev'ment. if you started both systems off to launch at the same time, and had the same devs making games for both, the 360 titles would most definitely outshine the ps3 counterparts due to better resourcing, an advantage gained by toolsets like xna and the design architecture behind 360.

full potential-wise, for GAMING APPS, there is VERY little if any difference for performance on paper with all things considered. in REALITY, you are making very blind and ignoratn assumptions to think ps3 has any sort of edge at all. the cell can ONLY excel over xenon IF and ONLY IF games are written specifically for the hardware, which no one is saying they are willing to do at this point. FURTHERMORE, thats even assuming that the 360 potential isnt being fully tapped into as well. and ill bet you a million dollars right now that the 360 WILL reach its potential MUCH sooner than ps3 will due to sony's lack of an easy dev'ment platform comparitively. right now, not one 360 game is using teh cpu ANYWHERE near its fullest. everything is running primarily off of 1 of the 3 cores. over the next 3 yrs, the 3 cores will be tapped into just as they get tapped into on pc dev'ment in the upcoming cpu architectures for computers.

ps3 architecture, however, will remain obscure and wont lend itself well at all for pc ports.

i suggest you go read thru some of newell's and carmack's statements before assuming what some japanese PR mumbo-jumbo tells ya.


btw, stop spreading misinformation as well. there are NOT, i REPEAT NOT as many games in dev'ment for ps3 compared to 360. around 250 titles in dev'ment for 360 vs maybe 150 for ps3. as of tgs, the counts were about 200 to 102 respectively for 360/ps3. i honestly dont know where you get some of your "info" but its a far cry from reality my friend.

When did you get to play the PS3?

hell, for that matter when did ANYONE get to play a ps3?! HAHAHA! sony hasnt even got to play the thing yet i bet.

[Ztype]

If Xbox360 is as you claim, as powerful than the PS3 then why are important developers like Hideo Kojima and Yu Suzuki saying things along the lines of PS3 being overtly powerful, while Xbox360, being powerful in it's own right, is easier to develop for.

The Xbox360 has a better video card, because PS3 doesn't even a necessitate a powerful video card. The cell alone can render video without needing an external GPU. They threw one in there for less stress on the CPU, so the cell could focus on computing other things. I don't know, when something can output two seperate 1920x1080p signals simultaneously at 120FPS, not that it is a requirement, nor does it interest me very much, it says something about it's technical prowess. I said it wouldn't be fully utilized for a few years, so like I said it's moot right now, but Sony designs it's systems for the future. Look at the PS2, it's 6 year old hardware yet it's standing up to current gen games running on Xbox and Gamecube which are barely 4 years old.

I also would like to know where you pulled the 250 games in development from. I've looked at lists from both IGN and Gamespot and counted slightly more for PS3 than Xbox360. 99% of them I could care less for, but it's simple counting.

[EM1L]

Originally Posted by ztype85

Does it really matter? Not really, because both Gamecube and Xbox are more powerful than PS2, yet they're tanking in comparison. It's the games that matter not the spec wars. Power doesn't matter unless there are good games that can tap it.

http://goty.gamespy.com/2003/overall/index11.html
http://goty.gamespy.com/2004/overall/index10.html
Both won game of the year and both on xbox. Since when is 30% of the marketshare tanking?

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by SovietSlayer

http://goty.gamespy.com/2003/overall/index11.html
http://goty.gamespy.com/2004/overall/index10.html
Both won game of the year and both on xbox. Since when is 30% of the marketshare tanking?

Okay I could pull 100 sites that picked PS2 games as games of the year, hell I'm sure I could find plenty of sites that picked Gamecube games as games of the year, as well as many sites that picked different Xbox games as GOTY. What's the point, it's subjective opinion, while sales and shipping numbers aren't. 30% while great for a first system, is nothing compared to the headlock Sony has on the market right now, what is it, 60-65%?

[EM1L]

Originally Posted by ztype85

I don't know, when something can output two seperate 1920x1080p signals simultaneously at 120FPS

I get the feeling that the ps2 can't do that.

Originally Posted by ztype85

but Sony designs it's systems for the future. Look at the PS2, it's 6 year old hardware yet it's standing up to current gen games running on Xbox and Gamecube which are barely 4 years old.

If Sony is building the PS3 for the future, then how came they're is laready plans for the PS4.

[Ztype]

[QUOTE=SovietSlayer]I get the feeling that the ps2 can't do that.

Originally Posted by ztype85

but Sony designs it's systems for the future. Look at the PS2, it's 6 year old hardware yet it's standing up to current gen games running on Xbox and Gamecube which are barely 4 years old./QUOTE]
If Sony is building the PS3 for the future, then how came they're is laready plans for the PS4.

As if Microsoft doesn't have plans for Xbox 360's successor?

[EM1L]

Originally Posted by ztype85

30% while great for a first system, is nothing compared to the headlock Sony has on the market right now, what is it, 60-65%?

65% more like 51% and it came out 2 years before the xbox so the xbox had 2/3 the time to get 34% of the market and the fact that the PS2 came out after the PS1 which was the most sucessful console of the last gen.

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by SovietSlayer

60% more like 51% and it came out 2 years before the xbox so the xbox had 2/3 the time to get 34% of the market and the fact that the PS2 came out after the PS1 which was the most sucessful console of the last gen.

So basically Sony is penalized for being successful? Why go off on such a tangent anyway, I thought this was about Xbox 360 and PS3.

[EM1L]

Originally Posted by ztype85

I thought this was about Xbox 360 and PS3.

Your the one who brought up the other consoles...

Originally Posted by ztype85

Does it really matter? Not really, because both Gamecube and Xbox are more powerful than PS2, yet they're tanking in comparison. It's the games that matter not the spec wars. Power doesn't matter unless there are good games that can tap it.

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by SovietSlayer

Your the one who brought up the other consoles...

Yes to further my point that Sony designs it's systems for the future, I didn't bring up the likes of pie charts, market shares, and sales analysis to alter the fact that something is far behind something else.

[EM1L]

Originally Posted by ztype85

Yes to further my point that Sony designs it's systems for the future, I didn't bring up the likes of pie charts, market shares, and sales analysis to alter the fact that something is far behind something else.

So talking about PS2 games being better than xbox and GC games(which they're not) means Sony plans for the future.

[comradx]

Originally Posted by ztype85

Yes to further my point that Sony designs it's systems for the future, I didn't bring up the likes of pie charts, market shares, and sales analysis to alter the fact that something is far behind something else.

says the person drooling over ps3's ancient gpu architecture. not even nvidia thinks taht thing has a shot in hell of competing with other gpu's in the future! and be sure to let us all know when the Cell doesnt turn into another emotion engine, lol! and i find it absolutely HILARIOUS you would imply M$ isnt looking into the future. they dont care about physical format wars and arent gonna put their full muscle behind hd-dvd b/c physical formats wont exist in 10 yrs. wanna guess who holds the patents for digital content delivery systems over a broadband connection? hint: NOT sony...

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by SovietSlayer

So talking about PS2 games being better than xbox and GC games(which they're not) means Sony plans for the future.

I was talking about sales figures, point to where I said the games were better. Again you're using subjective opinion, while I'm pointing towards hard data.

And I brought up the fact that PS2 has survived 6 years and can manage to run current games like Xbox and Gamecube which are barely 4 years old. That's what I was referring to when I said Sony designs for the future, as is made plainly obvious the power of the cell, the blu ray drive, the ability to output in 1080p.

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by comradx

says the person drooling over ps3's ancient gpu architecture. not even nvidia thinks taht thing has a shot in hell of competing with other gpu's in the future! and be sure to let us all know when the Cell doesnt turn into another emotion engine, lol! and i find it absolutely HILARIOUS you would imply M$ isnt looking into the future. they dont care about physical format wars and arent gonna put their full muscle behind hd-dvd b/c physical formats wont exist in 10 yrs. wanna guess who holds the patents for digital content delivery systems over a broadband connection? hint: NOT sony...

How am I drooling over it? Looking at a bigger number and comparing it to a smaller number is drooling? I'm not even getting a PS3 at this point. Ancient GPU architecture? I thought I made it plainly obvious that it doesn't need a top of the line GPU because the cell can handle video as well as audio by itself without requiring an external GPU.

[vecha]

We aren't going to notice any difference between these games when they are released...or ported to eachother.

BOTH companies are known for over exagerating on many things...an i'm not going to believe either/or untill i try it.

that "120 FPS" may seem fine and dandy..but i'd really like to see the games in real time first..then we can talk about the future.

[Ztype]

Originally Posted by vecha

We aren't going to notice any difference between these games when they are released...or ported to eachother.

BOTH companies are known for over exagerating on many things...an i'm not going to believe either/or untill i try it.

that "120 FPS" may seem fine and dandy..but i'd really like to see the games in real time first..then we can talk about the future.

Yes this was the original point I made before I got gangbanged by the Microsoft goons. 120 FPS is over excessive and nothing more than bragging rights, as the human eye can't even notice a frame rate that high.

[comradx]

Originally Posted by ztype85

If Xbox360 is as you claim, as powerful than the PS3 then why are important developers like Hideo Kojima and Yu Suzuki saying things along the lines of PS3 being overtly powerful, while Xbox360, being powerful in it's own right, is easier to develop for.

kojima said MGS4 can be done on 360. and need i remind you that NOT A SINGLE DEV has said teh ps3 has a better gpu, yet when they cite teh ps3 as being powerful, its always referring to the cpu. funny tho that gaming apps wont benefit any from much of its power. also, kojima has no clue about power. he doesnt design engines like newell, carmack, and epic games. ask those guys, who are the ones who continue to push gaming tech to it fullest, far beyond anything kojima can hope to do, about which is "light years ahead". they basically laugh at moronic statements like that. but by all means, feel free to show us all some ps3 gameplay pics that hope to compete with GoW...oh wait...

try asking thsoe guys who actually push the industry with their game engines. they will tell you ps3 isnt 'light years' ahead of anything.

The Xbox360 has a better video card, because PS3 doesn't even a necessitate a powerful video card. The cell alone can render video without needing an external GPU. They threw one in there for less stress on the CPU, so the cell could focus on computing other things. I don't know, when something can output two seperate 1920x1080p signals simultaneously at 120FPS, not that it is a requirement, nor does it interest me very much, it says something about it's technical prowess. I said it wouldn't be fully utilized for a few years, so like I said it's moot right now, but Sony designs it's systems for the future. Look at the PS2, it's 6 year old hardware yet it's standing up to current gen games running on Xbox and Gamecube which are barely 4 years old.

the CELL was SUPPOSED to be rendering ALL the grfx all by itself. but sony couldnt get teh thing to work out as planned. so they ran off to nvidia at the last moment and got them to do their rsx for ps3. so much for 'planning for the future'. also, no. not a single ps2 game looks even remotely competitive in grfx when compared to the best of xbox. chaos theory eats anything on ps2 up and ****s it out the other end pal. and keep bringin up things about how Cell outputs 1080p at 2 ends...even tho taht feature wont be there in the retial unit most likely. its stuff like that which makes the naive like yourself buy whatever sony tesll them about power. tehre wont be any games on ps3 that are natively 1080p. there wont be any tv's that even support that as a standard that cna hope to reach mass markets in the next few yrs. but you go ahead and imagine thats an advantage for power. yet it has nothing to do with games really. i guess you think C3ll can run all ps3 games at 120fps too like many ppl thought a few weeks back, lol.

I also would like to know where you pulled the 250 games in development from. I've looked at lists from both IGN and Gamespot and counted slightly more for PS3 than Xbox360. 99% of them I could care less for, but it's simple counting.

then you havent looked very hard.

"LOS ANGELES--More than 160 games are on the way for the Xbox 360, with up to 40, including best-seller "Final Fantasy XI," expected to be available by the end of the year, Microsoft announced on Monday. "

http://news.com.com/A+gaggle+of+new+...3-5709353.html

thats 160 as of may 15th, 2005.

here we have only 102 ps3 games in development as of september 16th, 2005.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09...s_6133515.html


in an interview at tgs, peter moore confirmed over 200 games in dev'ment for 360. so much for your claims of ps3 having more in development, eh? 360 had a LOT more in the works 6 months ago than ps3 does even 2 months ago.