Why is the PlayStation 3's gpu not very powerful?

I was checking PS3's hardware on the net and i've read in a few posts that Xbox 360's gpu is slightly better than PS3's. How come Sony made the ps3 gpu less powerful than Xbox360's? I mean, yeah the cell cpu is one of the most powerful available, but wouldnt it be better if cpu was less powerful (say, 4 cores)but the gpu was a gaming monster? Isn't gpu more important for gaming?:?Note: I am not an Xbox fanboy or anything. I got all sony consoles (ps1, ps2, psp, ps3) so i guess that makes me a sony fanboy :P. I'm just curious why sony decided to make the cpu monstrous and the gpu not-so-monstrous.

It has an 8 core processor 7 are used and one is used for back, thats over double the 360

gpu is not the only thing that makes graphics look good, it uses other components that surpass the 360's graphical power, it has a buncha things the 360 doesnt

Sony made it that way.

I heard that Sony swapped the cpu & other things in the revamped PS3, after the 60gb model and probably after the 20gb version too.I remember somebody had one as a replacement and said the quality of the graphics was not as good as the original.This might be true then again it might not.Can someone clarify that please.

I heard that Sony swapped the cpu & other things in the revamped PS3, after the 60gb model and probably after the 20gb version too.I remember somebody had one as a replacement and said the quality of the graphics was not as good as the original.This might be true then again it might not.Can someone clarify that please.

cagivaelefant

PS3 is more graphically capable than the 360.

I was checking PS3's hardware on the net and i've read in a few posts that Xbox 360's gpu is slightly better than PS3's. How come Sony made the ps3 gpu less powerful than Xbox360's? I mean, yeah the cell cpu is one of the most powerful available, but wouldnt it be better if cpu was less powerful (say, 4 cores)but the gpu was a gaming monster? Isn't gpu more important for gaming?:?Note: I am not an Xbox fanboy or anything. I got all sony consoles (ps1, ps2, psp, ps3) so i guess that makes me a sony fanboy :P. I'm just curious why sony decided to make the cpu monstrous and the gpu not-so-monstrous.

LordAragis

I was checking PS3's hardware on the net and i've read in a few posts that Xbox 360's gpu is slightly better than PS3's. How come Sony made the ps3 gpu less powerful than Xbox360's? I mean, yeah the cell cpu is one of the most powerful available, but wouldnt it be better if cpu was less powerful (say, 4 cores)but the gpu was a gaming monster? Isn't gpu more important for gaming?:?Note: I am not an Xbox fanboy or anything. I got all sony consoles (ps1, ps2, psp, ps3) so i guess that makes me a sony fanboy :P. I'm just curious why sony decided to make the cpu monstrous and the gpu not-so-monstrous.

LordAragis

i understand what youre saying but sony designed the two to work together to produce better graphics than halo could ever produce.

just dont thinkof the specs too much because it could be misleading. because together these two are the dream team.

look at what kind of graphics ps3 can produce, Mgs4,killzone 2, uncharted, god of war 3. graphics that rival that of crysis, YES I SAID IT!!!

I suspect cost was a factor. As is they had to launch the system at a [disastrous] 500-600 USD. From what I've heard the original idea was that the PS3 would have, instead of the RSX (GPU), a second Cell processor! I can only imagine how expensive that would have been.

I heard that Sony swapped the cpu & other things in the revamped PS3, after the 60gb model and probably after the 20gb version too.I remember somebody had one as a replacement and said the quality of the graphics was not as good as the original.This might be true then again it might not.Can someone clarify that please.

cagivaelefant

I had a release 60GB version that broke and bought a new 80GB version and there is no difference in graphics whatsoever.

ask sony.

its so crap that we wish we cud have games like killzone2, mgs4, Motorstorm2 (with its 12 frames per second..) etc etc.

RSX puts out pretty nice looking graphics in my opinion.

Let's not get down to counting polygons...the best PS3 games look better than the best 360 games in my opinion.

Case closed.

I was checking PS3's hardware on the net and i've read in a few posts that Xbox 360's gpu is slightly better than PS3's. How come Sony made the ps3 gpu less powerful than Xbox360's? I mean, yeah the cell cpu is one of the most powerful available, but wouldnt it be better if cpu was less powerful (say, 4 cores)but the gpu was a gaming monster? Isn't gpu more important for gaming?:?Note: I am not an Xbox fanboy or anything. I got all sony consoles (ps1, ps2, psp, ps3) so i guess that makes me a sony fanboy :P. I'm just curious why sony decided to make the cpu monstrous and the gpu not-so-monstrous.

LordAragis

Well i stand corrected then ;).

what is more annoying and confusing is that sony put a weaker GPU in the PS3 than the xbox's even after the PS3 has been released a year later........i heard something abtthe RSX not being originally planned for the PS3 but in the late stages sony has asked Nivida for some GPU, and they gave them the RSX.

What I read is that the 360 pushes more polygons (not a very big difference between the systems though) but the PS3 pushes more advanced textures using the CPU, which makes the models look better.

I suspect cost was a factor. As is they had to launch the system at a [disastrous] 500-600 USD. From what I've heard the original idea was that the PS3 would have, instead of the RSX (GPU), a second Cell processor! I can only imagine how expensive that would have been. ThePlothole

That's basically the story I've heard....they originally had a second cell processor for the GPU but due to costs (or whatever it was) had to drop the idea at the last minute and approach Nvidia to quickly design a new GPU.

I was checking PS3's hardware on the net and i've read in a few posts that Xbox 360's gpu is slightly better than PS3's. How come Sony made the ps3 gpu less powerful than Xbox360's? I mean, yeah the cell cpu is one of the most powerful available, but wouldnt it be better if cpu was less powerful (say, 4 cores)but the gpu was a gaming monster? Isn't gpu more important for gaming?:?Note: I am not an Xbox fanboy or anything. I got all sony consoles (ps1, ps2, psp, ps3) so i guess that makes me a sony fanboy :P. I'm just curious why sony decided to make the cpu monstrous and the gpu not-so-monstrous.

LordAragis

[QUOTE="LordAragis"]

I was checking PS3's hardware on the net and i've read in a few posts that Xbox 360's gpu is slightly better than PS3's. How come Sony made the ps3 gpu less powerful than Xbox360's? I mean, yeah the cell cpu is one of the most powerful available, but wouldnt it be better if cpu was less powerful (say, 4 cores)but the gpu was a gaming monster? Isn't gpu more important for gaming?:?Note: I am not an Xbox fanboy or anything. I got all sony consoles (ps1, ps2, psp, ps3) so i guess that makes me a sony fanboy :P. I'm just curious why sony decided to make the cpu monstrous and the gpu not-so-monstrous.

Warriorboy1990

It is merely a question. And I doubt you even understand what I asked.

It has an 8 core processor 7 are used and one is used for back, thats over double the 360

imaps3fanboy

I'm talking about the gpu, not the cpu

The CPU's in PS3 are pretty much all the workload of the system, including majority of GPU work.

I don't know the reason for little less stronger GPU but from articles I had read - it really doen't matter, almost everything is completely handled by ridiculously fast CPU's.

It's quite a technology.

thats a satisfying answer. thank you. though i still wish the gpu had more memory, perhaps we would have more 1080p games.

Oh yea, I totally agree. More memory would always be fantastic for many things.

Still, for a console, it's a pretty powerful piece of hardware. ;)