PS3 vs Xbox 360

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

I believe the PS3 is more powerful than ANY consumer computer. If that holds true, the games on the PS3 could (and should) bypass the gaming performance of a high end PC.

Sorry friend. As a PC gamer I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

What is true is: $500-$600 for a PS3 can set you up nice whereas that amount of money can barely wipe your shoes to get in the door of PC gaming.

But come play on some dual or even quad core systems right now running some Geforce 8800 action and come back and revisit this.

[Blackraven]

Agreed.

Consoles generally are a one-time upgrade. They leap big in upgrades but PCs have faster upgrade rates even if the upgrading may be slower.

It generally takes 3-5 years before a manufacturer release a new console to replace their predecessor/existing one.

The advantage of consoles though is that it is primarily focused on gaming as a specific function. Thus other activities that you do in your console are of lower priority. PCs/MACs focus on all things in general but they do not focus on one specific thing.

The dream computer of the future though is to have one that specializes in ALL types of tasks with EQUAL EXCELLENCE. It doesn't just split 10% to 10 tasks but gives its 100% on ALL TEN TASKS.

And also to have super-duper low power consumption (like 1 watt or something) yet produce this much power.

That is indeed the computing machine of tomorrow's world.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Blackraven

Agreed.

Consoles generally are a one-time upgrade. They leap big in upgrades but PCs have faster upgrade rates even if the upgrading may be slower.

It generally takes 3-5 years before a manufacturer release a new console to replace their predecessor/existing one.

The PC always wins in the end.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by JTK

Sorry friend. As a PC gamer I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

What is true is: $500-$600 for a PS3 can set you up nice whereas that amount of money can barely wipe your shoes to get in the door of PC gaming.

But come play on some dual or even quad core systems right now running some Geforce 8800 action and come back and revisit this.

Yeah, considering that $500 won't get you the latest and greatest video card.

What about the games? Don't they have to be designed for the average system? Can a game sell well enough aimed at the fully tricked out hard core PC gamer?

Gary

[JTK]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Yeah, considering that $500 won't get you the latest and greatest video card.

What about the games? Don't they have to be designed for the average system? Can a game sell well enough aimed at the fully tricked out hard core PC gamer?

Gary

Yup.

[Sc430man]

The PS3 Cell DOES NOT HAVE 8 cores or even 7. It has ONE core. Pure and simple. Xbox 360 has a true 3 core cpu with dual threading in each. The rest in the PS3 are called SPE's or helper processors. The PS3 camp calls them cores as if they are real processors in terms of overall processing power, the rest of the world calls them ,"dumped down cores". I am not downplaying the Cell processor, just getting the facts ironed out.

Plus you are missing the entire point here in that even if the Cell was 10000 times faster and more powerful than a Duo Core 2 cpu, what does it matter in games when everything must still be imaged through the video card?
And that is where the PS3 falls short compared to the 360 and Hi End PC. Again price being no object. Price included of course the consoles have more bang for the buck but I never stated they did not. Keeping in mind again I have all three.

Also keep in mind floating point is just ONE single aspect of a cpu's abilities. This explains why on the limited benchmarks conducted (do a search) a PIII800 beat it out in some calculations. This does not mean that the PIII is faster than a Cell processor and I never stated it was. What I am stating is that they just process things differently just the same an AMD cpu does things just a bit differently than an Intel cpu. Both great cpu's, just different in how they reach their goals.

To add, IBM released a statement and spreadsheets and charts showing it actually only runs at 1.7Teraflops because all the SPE's are running at 73% due to their efficiency. Not the over 2 that you mentioned. Again , getting past the hype and just stating the real facts.

Blu-Ray playback is NOT an indicator of the units processing power. Good grief. Fact is the unit was designed to support Blu-Ray. PC drives are in their infancy as well as the drivers that support them. This was the case with DVD drives in their infancy and nobody made the jump that a DVD drive was more powerful than a PC. This is like saying a Pentium 1 cpu is faster than a PS3 because it's browser is faster and for those that really know the built in browser in the PS3 is slow-network constraints.

Again, no console will touch a PC for graphics, image quality, expandability, controls, etc... Same was said when the PS3 and Xbox came out. The same will be said then the next gen come out. Consoles are not expandable. PC's are. New video cards, new audio cards, new physics cars, etc... All one need is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Again dollar for dollar a console is the way to go. The PS3 vs 360 debate will go on forever as their are those that only have the one and will defend it to their death because they must defend their decision just the same as there are people that actually believe a Chevy Impala is better than a LS460 or SL550.

I care less if my consoles played games better than my PC and actually would prefer that but they do not and I do not need paper to compare the three. I used real games which I alreadt listed.

[JTK]

^^ You are critically mistaken if you're really trying to argue the 360's hardware is superior to the PS3's, even if we're just talking strictly from a gaming standpoint and nothing else.

Beyond that, PC > *.

[Sc430man]

Originally Posted by JTK

^^ You are critically mistaken if you're really trying to argue the 360's hardware is superior to the PS3's, even if we're just talking strictly from a gaming standpoint and nothing else.

Beyond that, PC > *.

Can you elaborate on that?

Facts are the 360 has a far better video card vs the PS3-this is not debatable. The PS3 does has a better overall CPU. Beyond that ,the PS3 takes the checkered flag with it's audio, hard drive, built in BR, memory card slots. Myself, I prefer the PS3 over the 360 because of the ,"complete package" factor.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Sc430man

Can you elaborate on that?

I'd like to see you elaborate on your points first, since you're the one throwing all this stuff out in the breeze without any backup whatsoever.

Please cite authoritative and objective documentation and proof.

[Sc430man]

Originally Posted by JTK

I'd like to see you elaborate on your points first, since you're the one throwing all this stuff out in the breeze without any backup whatsoever.

Please cite authoritative and objective documentation and proof.

Everything has already been stated above. If you disagree, then state your points of disagreement.. Otherwise you bring nothing to this discussion.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Sc430man

Everything has already been stated above. If you disagree, then state your points of dissagreement.. Otherwise you bring nothing to this discussion.

Yeah, you are passing off your opinion as fact without any concrete proof or backup.

I'd say that's adding absolutely nothing to any discussion whatsoever.

[Sc430man]

Originally Posted by JTK

Yeah, you are passing off your opinion as fact without any concrete proof or backup.

I'd say that's adding absolutely nothing to any discussion whatsoever.

And what are you offering? You are trolling this thread and bring nothing of substance to it. Go away unless you can actually bring something. You criticize and yet have nothing to offer. It is so easy to complain. Plus I NEVER stated the 360 was better than the PS3. Read it again.

[Maximus]

Hmm you mistakenly state that all the video processing will be done using RSX, the original designs of the PS3 didn't even have a dedicated GPU, instead it had a Dual Cell CPU configuration.

When the 8800GTX was released with the Unified Shader Architecture many people stated that it looked liked a beefed up version of the Cell that had been specialised for GFX processing, while the Cell was a more general purpose piece of silicon.

Now for the Xenon, it is in no way shape or form equal to the Cell, do you see IBM manufacturing these for anything other than the X360. Cell otoh is being put into IBM blades for general use in servers. Now lets move onto BD/HD DVD playback on each, Cell in the PS3 is underutilised, and Sony have stated that it takes few system resources to decode one HD stream, whereas MS have stated that the X360 is being pushed to the limit and all 3 cores are maxed out when decoding HD DVD. So which is better?

[Sc430man]

True not ALL the the graphics is processed by the RSX, but most of it is. The same with any PC out there.And to call the Cell a 8800GTX is not even close. The Cell is not the GPU in PS3.

But for those that really want to get into why the PS3 or 360 cannot compete with a PC-read this. Now there is a bunch of garbage posts in there but in between are the real specs on the processing power of all the systems. A good read and should straighten out a few of you.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardw...ict175675.html

[Kenshiro]

The PS3 hardware wins over the 360 hands down for the simple reason of reliability. A simple search will return thousands of reports of 360 failures. It is a Microsoft product after all.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Sc430man

The PS3 Cell DOES NOT HAVE 8 cores or even 7. It has ONE core. Pure and simple. Xbox 360 has a true 3 core cpu with dual threading in each. The rest in the PS3 are called SPE's or helper processors. The PS3 camp calls them cores as if they are real processors in terms of overall processing power, the rest of the world calls them ,"dumped down cores". I am not downplaying the Cell processor, just getting the facts ironed out.

Plus you are missing the entire point here in that even if the Cell was 10000 times faster and more powerful than a Duo Core 2 cpu, what does it matter in games when everything must still be imaged through the video card?
And that is where the PS3 falls short compared to the 360 and Hi End PC. Again price being no object. Price included of course the consoles have more bang for the buck but I never stated they did not. Keeping in mind again I have all three.

Also keep in mind floating point is just ONE single aspect of a cpu's abilities. This explains why on the limited benchmarks conducted (do a search) a PIII800 beat it out in some calculations. This does not mean that the PIII is faster than a Cell processor and I never stated it was. What I am stating is that they just process things differently just the same an AMD cpu does things just a bit differently than an Intel cpu. Both great cpu's, just different in how they reach their goals.

To add, IBM released a statement and spreadsheets and charts showing it actually only runs at 1.7Teraflops because all the SPE's are running at 73% due to their efficiency. Not the over 2 that you mentioned. Again , getting past the hype and just stating the real facts.

Blu-Ray playback is NOT an indicator of the units processing power. Good grief. Fact is the unit was designed to support Blu-Ray. PC drives are in their infancy as well as the drivers that support them. This was the case with DVD drives in their infancy and nobody made the jump that a DVD drive was more powerful than a PC. This is like saying a Pentium 1 cpu is faster than a PS3 because it's browser is faster and for those that really know the built in browser in the PS3 is slow-network constraints.

Again, no console will touch a PC for graphics, image quality, expandability, controls, etc... Same was said when the PS3 and Xbox came out. The same will be said then the next gen come out. Consoles are not expandable. PC's are. New video cards, new audio cards, new physics cars, etc... All one need is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Again dollar for dollar a console is the way to go. The PS3 vs 360 debate will go on forever as their are those that only have the one and will defend it to their death because they must defend their decision just the same as there are people that actually believe a Chevy Impala is better than a LS460 or SL550.

I care less if my consoles played games better than my PC and actually would prefer that but they do not and I do not need paper to compare the three. I used real games which I alreadt listed.

Please show me a consumer computer that has Floating Point Calculations at 1.7 TFLOPs. The Xbox 360 is around 1 TFLOP (and it has 3 Threaded processors at 3.2GHz). How many consumer PCs (consumer PCs means I can buy the PC in a store) have 3 THREADED processors)?

Here's where it tells you that the PS3 is 10x faster than current CPUs (under the "So, what is Cell Architecture" section).

I think a lot of people are caught up on the large screen sizes for computer backgrounds (beyond 1600x1200, etc). If you think that just upscaling is enough, than you think the Xbox 360 1080p patch will be equal to the PS3's 1080p gaming that will be coming out (Grand Turismo HD, etc). It is the same as upscaling a standard definition DVD to 720p or 1080p. The extra information is NOT there.

The PS3 IS more powerful than consumer PCs at what it does.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Sc430man

True not ALL the the graphics is processed by the RSX, but most of it is. The same with any PC out there.And to call the Cell a 8800GTX is not even close. The Cell is not the GPU in PS3.

But for those that really want to get into why the PS3 or 360 cannot compete with a PC-read this. Now there is a bunch of garbage posts in there but in between are the real specs on the processing power of all the systems. A good read and should straighten out a few of you.

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardw...ict175675.html

I don't think you understood, the Unified Shader Architecture looks remarkably similar to Cell Architecture, and that's what I was pointing out, that it could be used as a GPU, and originally was going to be used as such. Just so you know the workload on RSX will be way lower than the workload on the RS600 in the X360, why, the Cell has a similar architecture to the Unified Shader Architecture, and it can pick up the slack, where the Xenon can't as it just won't understand what to do with the data.

[Sc430man]

Another well written article on the PS3 vs 360 debate.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1


Folks, read the links above. Alot of good information in there that will put many of these, "claims" to rest. There is much discussion on the limited power of the Cell processor as well as the the 360's graphics GPU being superior to the PS3 which is not even debatable.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Sc430man

Another well written article on the PS3 vs 360 debate.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1


Folks, read the links above. Alot of good information in there that will put many of these, "claims" to rest. There is much discussion on the limited power of the Cell processor as well as the the 360's graphics GPU being superior to the PS3 which is not even debatable.

Hmmm, this mainly talks about programming difficulty for the Cell, and how 256MB graphics RAM will affect performance. As has been mentioned before the only concern with Cell in the past was the bandwidth, this issue has since been clarified by IBM. I remember reading an article by an Epic programmer who was talking about the PS3 in relation to UT2007, he said that programming for the PS3 was like learning to walk all over again, and optimising will be like breaking the world record for 100m, or something to that effect, but overall the PS3 was incredibly powerful, it was accessing the power that proved difficult using traditional methods. Which is why they have come up with new ways for programming Cell and the PS3.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Sc430man

Another well written article on the PS3 vs 360 debate.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1


Folks, read the links above. Alot of good information in there that will put many of these, "claims" to rest. There is much discussion on the limited power of the Cell processor as well as the the 360's graphics GPU being superior to the PS3 which is not even debatable.

I give a technical site and you give me a gaming site?