PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Here's another example as to why that is...

Ok I think this topic should end, in conclusion

PS3 is a communicating grill

and 360 is just as powerful and hot as that communicating grill. The End.

Im sick of hearing all this**** stuff from sony/imb

The day i have an acuall game playing on my ps3 that's as good as they say it is, i will thanks them for wasting 2 years of my life listing to them

theboxmike

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

Call me when someone has a thread about PS3 games being dropped off at stores for people to buy. Is the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Sure, wtf, lets say its at least x2Bill Cosby more powerful than the 360. Is this extra power doing anyone a damn bit of good atm? No, its not. Tech threads are the worst threads on this entire forum, I would rather read the next manifesto from PS3_FTW than the most accurate tech thread around. Most people want games from their game systems not the smug self satisfying satisfaction that their system does 10% more g-flops than a rival system. I'm not saying the PS3 sux I think it will at some point be a great system I'm just saying tech threads make me want to puke.

Redfingers

Damn, the advantages of cell are awesome.l_The_DetoX_l

The point is not that it performs "10% better" than rival systems, it's that it absolutely blows everything out of the water in any of these technical demonstrations. We're talking multiple times better than anything it's been put up against. That's why there's a point to it. The concept is that the PS3 has absolutely limitless potential.Redfingers

Bahahahaha!!! This was one of the funniest post I have seen.

"Multiple time better" and "PS3 has absolutely limitless potential" are the one that blew my water out my nose.

And meantime, in the world world, 360 games look better, run better and have online capablities and are consistly out performing the same PS3 games.  So much for the absolutely limitless potential of the PS3!!!

Hey, word of advice, put down the pipe. 

I own all 3 consoles. I think the 360 versions only look better at the moment because no one knows how to take advantage of the ps3's cell so they just port 360 versions to the ps3 and thats why it's like this at the moment. I think down the road when the cell is taken advantage of there will be a bigger difference graphics wise between the systems. unknowndrk

[QUOTE="l_The_DetoX_l"]Damn, the advantages of cell are awesome.machitocaliente

So you've played a game that's going to be released on April 24th for PS3? Interesting..., may I ask how? 

[QUOTE="unknowndrk"]I own all 3 consoles. I think the 360 versions only look better at the moment because no one knows how to take advantage of the ps3's cell so they just port 360 versions to the ps3 and thats why it's like this at the moment. I think down the road when the cell is taken advantage of there will be a bigger difference graphics wise between the systems. DaddyDC650

Yes, the PS3 is indeed many times superior when it comes to floating point.

But keep in mind, that realtime ray-tracing for games won't be very feasible until next generation

And the comparisons on specific benchmarks are pointless, if you ran a pixel shader or a vertex shaderbenchmark, the 360 would dominate the PS3. It doesn't mean that the PS3 is more powerful because it can run ray-tracing at very high speeds.

It wasn't even using RSX, it was all Cell.l_The_DetoX_l

Its the Cell in PS3 that makes it the more Powerful console

[QUOTE="machitocaliente"][QUOTE="l_The_DetoX_l"]Damn, the advantages of cell are awesome.l_The_DetoX_l

So you've played a game that's going to be released on April 24th for PS3? Interesting..., may I ask how? 

He's obviously the lead Dev........

Nah...

Wasn't Warhawk using Real-time Ray-tracing in the clouds? Look how that crap tastic game turned out.

Ray tracing is a joke.

Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!AB_Uppercut

I was just about to say the same thing...without bashing the lemmings, of course. The difference between the two consoles is minimal as far as power goes. I'm sure both will produce visually impressive games during their lifespans that will stoke fanboys into power debates for years.

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"]Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!HarryCrackage

I was just about to say the same thing...without bashing the lemmings, of course. The difference between the two consoles is minimal as far as power goes. I'm sure both will produce visually impressive games during their lifespans that will stoke fanboys into power debates for years.

umm minimal :?

360 GPU > PS3 GPU

PS3 CPU >>>>>>>>>> 360 CPU

overall winner: PS3 !!!

its true, oh and have you noticed that when Microsoft usually compares PS3 to 360 they always say that the difference is minimal. this is weird because last gen they were always like "teh xbox pwns PS2 in terms of power" but how come they are not doing it this time :? I'll tell you why, its because they know the PS3 is way more powerful and capable machine and you will see a major difference in PS3 and 360 games in the coming years, starting with MGS4 8)

and you will see a major difference in PS3 and 360 games in the coming years, starting with MGS4 AB_Uppercut

[QUOTE="HarryCrackage"]

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"]Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!AB_Uppercut

I was just about to say the same thing...without bashing the lemmings, of course. The difference between the two consoles is minimal as far as power goes. I'm sure both will produce visually impressive games during their lifespans that will stoke fanboys into power debates for years.

umm minimal :?

360 GPU > PS3 GPU

PS3 CPU >>>>>>>>>> 360 CPU

overall winner: PS3 !!!

its true, oh and have you noticed that when Microsoft usually compares PS3 to 360 they always say that the difference is minimal. this is weird because last gen they were always like "teh xbox pwns PS2 in terms of power" but how come they are not doing it this time :? I'll tell you why, its because they know the PS3 is way more powerful and capable machine and you will see a major difference in PS3 and 360 games in the coming years, starting with MGS4 8)

That may be true, but keep in mind that when the original Xbox released nothing the PS2 could offer was comparable to the games available on the Xbox. Halo and Dead or Alive 3 were obviously more impressive than anything on the PS2. This gen, the PS3 has yet to deliver anything that is obviously better than what is offered on the 360. That is why I believe the "minimal" claim stands. Down the road you could be correct. Right now, though, minimally better is rather accurate.

>Now obviously this was done using 3 PS3's but does it not make you fellow gamers wonder why they're not using 360's instead? I mean, 360's costs 200 dollars less than PS3's so why would they bother with the PS3 if they could save a few hundred bucks?

 

DaddyDC650

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"][QUOTE="HarryCrackage"]

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"]Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!HarryCrackage

I was just about to say the same thing...without bashing the lemmings, of course. The difference between the two consoles is minimal as far as power goes. I'm sure both will produce visually impressive games during their lifespans that will stoke fanboys into power debates for years.

umm minimal :?

360 GPU > PS3 GPU

PS3 CPU >>>>>>>>>> 360 CPU

overall winner: PS3 !!!

its true, oh and have you noticed that when Microsoft usually compares PS3 to 360 they always say that the difference is minimal. this is weird because last gen they were always like "teh xbox pwns PS2 in terms of power" but how come they are not doing it this time :? I'll tell you why, its because they know the PS3 is way more powerful and capable machine and you will see a major difference in PS3 and 360 games in the coming years, starting with MGS4 8)

That may be true, but keep in mind that when the original Xbox released nothing the PS2 could offer was comparable to the games available on the Xbox. Halo and Dead or Alive 3 were obviously more impressive than anything on the PS2. This gen, the PS3 has yet to deliver anything that is obviously better than what is offered on the 360. That is why I believe the "minimal" claim stands. Down the road you could be correct. Right now, though, minimally better is rather accurate.

I completely disagree, although the Xbox was more powerful it came way too late to make an impact. PS2 already had GT3, MGS2, FF10, DMC, Jak and Daxter etc to combat anything the the xbox had.

PS3 is a reletively new console but by the end of the year it will start to flex its muscles. MGS4 will be the first true showcase of PS3's capabilities from a 3rd party developer, mostly it will be 1st/2nd party titles that will show the true power of PS3 at the beginning.

[QUOTE="HarryCrackage"][QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"][QUOTE="HarryCrackage"]

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"]Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!AB_Uppercut

I was just about to say the same thing...without bashing the lemmings, of course. The difference between the two consoles is minimal as far as power goes. I'm sure both will produce visually impressive games during their lifespans that will stoke fanboys into power debates for years.

umm minimal :?

360 GPU > PS3 GPU

PS3 CPU >>>>>>>>>> 360 CPU

overall winner: PS3 !!!

its true, oh and have you noticed that when Microsoft usually compares PS3 to 360 they always say that the difference is minimal. this is weird because last gen they were always like "teh xbox pwns PS2 in terms of power" but how come they are not doing it this time :? I'll tell you why, its because they know the PS3 is way more powerful and capable machine and you will see a major difference in PS3 and 360 games in the coming years, starting with MGS4 8)

That may be true, but keep in mind that when the original Xbox released nothing the PS2 could offer was comparable to the games available on the Xbox. Halo and Dead or Alive 3 were obviously more impressive than anything on the PS2. This gen, the PS3 has yet to deliver anything that is obviously better than what is offered on the 360. That is why I believe the "minimal" claim stands. Down the road you could be correct. Right now, though, minimally better is rather accurate.

I completely disagree, although the Xbox was more powerful it came way too late to make an impact. PS2 already had GT3, MGS2, FF10, DMC, Jak and Daxter etc to combat anything the the xbox had.

PS3 is a reletively new console but by the end of the year it will start to flex its muscles. MGS4 will be the first true showcase of PS3's capabilities from a 3rd party developer, mostly it will be 1st/2nd party titles that will show the true power of PS3 at the beginning.

I'm only talking about visuals, not sales. Obviously, nothing arrived on the original Xbox that made an impact in the PS2 sales. As far as the multiplats go, yes, they pretty much all looked better on the original Xbox. This gen, the difference between multiplats is much smaller. Maybe it will change down the road, but my point is that the difference was obvious last gen. Not so much this gen.

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"][QUOTE="HarryCrackage"][QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"][QUOTE="HarryCrackage"]

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"]Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!HarryCrackage

I was just about to say the same thing...without bashing the lemmings, of course. The difference between the two consoles is minimal as far as power goes. I'm sure both will produce visually impressive games during their lifespans that will stoke fanboys into power debates for years.

umm minimal :?

360 GPU > PS3 GPU

PS3 CPU >>>>>>>>>> 360 CPU

overall winner: PS3 !!!

its true, oh and have you noticed that when Microsoft usually compares PS3 to 360 they always say that the difference is minimal. this is weird because last gen they were always like "teh xbox pwns PS2 in terms of power" but how come they are not doing it this time :? I'll tell you why, its because they know the PS3 is way more powerful and capable machine and you will see a major difference in PS3 and 360 games in the coming years, starting with MGS4 8)

That may be true, but keep in mind that when the original Xbox released nothing the PS2 could offer was comparable to the games available on the Xbox. Halo and Dead or Alive 3 were obviously more impressive than anything on the PS2. This gen, the PS3 has yet to deliver anything that is obviously better than what is offered on the 360. That is why I believe the "minimal" claim stands. Down the road you could be correct. Right now, though, minimally better is rather accurate.

I completely disagree, although the Xbox was more powerful it came way too late to make an impact. PS2 already had GT3, MGS2, FF10, DMC, Jak and Daxter etc to combat anything the the xbox had.

PS3 is a reletively new console but by the end of the year it will start to flex its muscles. MGS4 will be the first true showcase of PS3's capabilities from a 3rd party developer, mostly it will be 1st/2nd party titles that will show the true power of PS3 at the beginning.

I'm only talking about visuals, not sales. Obviously, nothing arrived on the original Xbox that made an impact in the PS2 sales. As far as the multiplats go, yes, they pretty much all looked better on the original Xbox. This gen, the difference between multiplats is much smaller. Maybe it will change down the road, but my point is that the difference was obvious last gen. Not so much this gen.

visually I found MGS2 and GT3 to be as good as Halo or DOA3 if not better but I do agree then most multiplatform titles were better on the xbox, except for MGS2 substance.

This gen 360 has an advantage of getting slightly better multiplatform titles because the developers are used to the 360's architecture since it came out a year + ago. Eventually developers will use PS3 as their lead platform for multiplatform titles, its already happening with Burnout 5 and Army of Two.

Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!AB_Uppercut

I don't really care since the graphics look about the same on both consoles, at least for the moment.Dragonblade01

[QUOTE="AB_Uppercut"]Only the fanboys wont admit PS3 is more powerful. I mean PS2 fans admitted the Xbox was more powerful back inthe days so why cant 360 fans admit the PS3 is more powerful this time, its not like having more power means you have won the console war. Remember its about THE GAMES !!!CwlHeddwyn

lol what's funny is that you got a bunch of cows talking like experts after reading a spec sheet and a bunch of news articles... 

get some qualifications or show us a game and we'll believe you lol 

lol what's funny is that you got a bunch of cows talking like experts after reading a spec sheet and a bunch of news articles...

get some qualifications or show us a game and we'll believe you lol

crunchy9178

Ray tracing doesnt make a game look good. Whats so impressive about that?

Oh and BTW, with the Cell as powerful as it is...wouldnt it be bottlenecked by RSX? Immensly.  Its like a X6800 with a 7600GT, atleast thats what it looks like to me.

It doesn't really look 75% better. I guess developers can do a good enough job faking those effects. I'd expect it to be rendering more than a single vehicle. Sort of makes PS3 look even worse than it does already for its price point.JiveT

PS3 Real-time Ray-tracing

Quote:

"IBM Interactive Ray-tracer (iRT) using three Sony Playstation3s (PS3) to render a model that is 75x more complex then those used in today's games. Ray-tracing is the rendering technique used by the film industry and is considered to complex for today's game systems. The code was written using IBM Cell SDK 2.0 on Linux. The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates. All images are at least 720p 4x multi-sampled, with dynamic light sources, procedurally generated atmosphere, and dynamic shadows"

http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News-33982.aspx

Now obviously this was done using 3 PS3's but does it not make you fellow gamers wonder why they're not using 360's instead? I mean, 360's costs 200 dollars less than PS3's so why would they bother with the PS3 if they could save a few hundred bucks?

DaddyDC650

[QUOTE="DaddyDC650"]PS3 Real-time Ray-tracing

Quote:

"IBM Interactive Ray-tracer (iRT) using three Sony Playstation3s (PS3) to render a model that is 75x more complex then those used in today's games. Ray-tracing is the rendering technique used by the film industry and is considered to complex for today's game systems. The code was written using IBM Cell SDK 2.0 on Linux. The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates. All images are at least 720p 4x multi-sampled, with dynamic light sources, procedurally generated atmosphere, and dynamic shadows"

http://www.n4g.com/ps3/News-33982.aspx

Now obviously this was done using 3 PS3's but does it not make you fellow gamers wonder why they're not using 360's instead? I mean, 360's costs 200 dollars less than PS3's so why would they bother with the PS3 if they could save a few hundred bucks?

ktre

they used 3 ps3's to create a car model that is not that much better

than 360's tes:unlimited.The cpu alone doesn't make a strong console

it also needs astrong gpu,ram and stuff like that and you know that

xenos>rsx all the way plus if i need i can have more ram than ps3.

and its not like that cell>>>>>>>>>xenos,in most situations its

like cell=xenon ,in some cell>xenon and in some xenon>cell but its

allways xenos>rsx  so overall 360>ps3

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

Call me when someone has a thread about PS3 games being dropped off at stores for people to buy. Is the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Sure, wtf, lets say its at least x2Bill Cosby more powerful than the 360. Is this extra power doing anyone a damn bit of good atm? No, its not. Tech threads are the worst threads on this entire forum, I would rather read the next manifesto from PS3_FTW than the most accurate tech thread around. Most people want games from their game systems not the smug self satisfying satisfaction that their system does 10% more g-flops than a rival system. I'm not saying the PS3 sux I think it will at some point be a great system I'm just saying tech threads make me want to puke.

Redfingers

why does all bovine "proof" involve theoritical maximum, paper performance, and "analysis" but no actual examples.... ?

hmmm....

meanwhile, multiplat games look better on the 360... interesting..