PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Pros and Cons

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.

360's Pros
Better graphics card= better graphics

PS3's Pros
Better processor(generally Speaking)

Well I read some key points and IBM developed both processors and yes the people who made the processors should really know what they're t talking about.

With everything I've read here's the conclusion that I've come up with.

PS3's upsides will be in games is it's physics. Because games are practically simulations the better the simulation the more fun it is right? That's what the cell processor is going for. Currently I'd like to see more realism in explosions, bullets(ricocheting off walls), vehicles smashing into one another, than the 360's version of more pretty but yet not a s realistic as Cell Processor.

Another thing that you should pay attention to is that PS3 has huge back tracking ability. Being able to read CD's, Dvd's. Blu-ray, PlayStation, PlayStation2, and Play Station 3 games is a huge bonus adding in 10's of thousands of extra games. PS3 also has free online and it has a lot's input output slots(USB,Flash, etc.). PS3 also has the ability to upgrade it's Hardrive and it's Operating system(for instance imagine using windows XP, Vista on your PS3 I bet you Microsoft won't be very happy). Another thing PS3 has going for it is motion censoring it brings more fun into the game and last but not least there's Blu-ray well the thing is it's storage is huge and it's compatibility with HD 1080:p is very very good. The games for Sony games have always been worser cross platform but better games for it's own platform where as 360's cross plat form games have been better than the majority of the games based on that system.

X Box 360's Pros well it has a lot more pretty graphics I'll give it that much. With X box live which is very good better than PSN. It also has more titles for it currently. And the games so far that's only for 360 are very good. Lost Planet, Gears of War, Viva Pinata, etc. It also has many games coming out for the 360 Halo 3, Crack Down, etc. Well X Box 360 has all the games for right now and it will compared to PS3's MGS 4, Kill Zone 2, and Motor Storm. Unfortunately the list of good games coming out for PS3 is smaller than 360's until 2008 starts. That's when you see PS3's peek. You notice that Halo3 will come out 2 in a half years after 360's launch. Well you'll see PS3's peak in games in 2008 until then you'll just have to wait. But until then you can survive off the larger library of good games for 360 until PS3 comes back around the corner.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

#2 Posted by highlander0659 (1081 posts) -
Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

Yahiko182
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.
#3 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
I've read EA developer statements, and they say the same thing.
#4 Posted by Twisted_Hawk (579 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

highlander0659
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Funny how lemmings and a lot of fanboyish sites said the PS3 is weaker, and will always be that way. Just look how they hyped the PS3 game prices after PSM released their interview with Kaz Hirai, who made it sound like games will be more expensive.

However, this does not mean that the PS3 will win. IF Blu-ray takes off, then the Playstation 3 will be at a much bigger advantage. As of right now though, the Xbox 360 has a slight advantage in terms of quality. Heck, every game except Madden 07 looks almost the exact same as it does on the Xbox 360. I don't care about, "but, but teh blur or graphics" The only thing it has at the moment is framerate. It is a real big advantage though, since games need to run at high speeds and frustrating free. We'll see how it turns out.

Oh, and can you explain the GPU for me, if you know anything about it? I read in PSM that the GPU has a better advantage on the PS3 because it runs at 550 MHz instead of 500 MHz, which is what the Xenos has, but I have no idea what is better and what is not.

#5 Posted by Twisted_Hawk (579 posts) -
Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

Yahiko182
Wow! Using a plagarized lie that Microsoft said all the way back in May 2005. You have really shown me something spectacular there. Don't believe me? Check this. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html Wow, why don't you try again some other day?
#6 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
[QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies.
#7 Posted by Twisted_Hawk (579 posts) -
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. (I have heard back and forth arguments on that one. Some claim that the RSX is faster than the Xenos, which in the stats it is, but I'm not too sure on that one. You may have the GPU, but I don't think the architecture. Sony has been developing and researching the Cell for years, which makes it extremely powerful., so I't hard to say what console has the better architecture. If I picked right now, I would say the PS3 has the better architecture, mainly because of things like Oblivion looks better, and the PS3 can have more power squeezed out than the 360. I don't know a whole lot about this one though, but I do feel skeptical about the 360 having a better arthitecture than the PS3. Most likey, they are the same.) Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. (True, but I believe it does this through component cables, and not HDMI.) And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. (Still, it does have twice as many SPEs as the 360's total processors.) Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. (PS3 solves this by installing the game onto the HDD, and then loading straight from the drive to decrease load times. Also, size is an important factor in the game, and if the DVD proves to be too small, then PS3 will be at a better advantage. Games like Motorstorm and Resistance already use 20+ GB's on the Blu-ray, so we will see how this turns out.) And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies. (I don't know about that one though. I do know that one SPE is used as the OS, but I don't know about the rest.)

If anything shows of the hardware, it will be the games. We'll see how it turns out this year. The only people who truly understand this stuff are the developers making the games.
#8 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
[QUOTE="Twisted_Hawk"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies.

If anything shows of the hardware, it will be the games. We'll see how it turns out this year. The only people who truly understand this stuff are the developers making the games.

The 360's architecture is MUCH better than the PS3's. I'm talking about the overall architecture of the entire system. I would explain it, but I'm lazy right now. The PS3 has more peak power, but it's terribly inefficient. The 360 works at nearly 100% efficiency at all times. And there are ALOT of reasons for this.
#9 Posted by Twisted_Hawk (579 posts) -
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Twisted_Hawk"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. (True, but I believe it does this through component cables, and not HDMI.) And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. (Still, it does have twice as many SPEs as the 360's total processors.) Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. (PS3 solves this by installing the game onto the HDD, and then loading straight from the drive to decrease load times. Also, size is an important factor in the game, and if the DVD proves to be too small, then PS3 will be at a better advantage. Games like Motorstorm and Resistance already use 20+ GB's on the Blu-ray, so we will see how this turns out.) And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies. (I don't know about that one though. I do know that one SPE is used as the OS, but I don't know about the rest.)

If anything shows of the hardware, it will be the games. We'll see how it turns out this year. The only people who truly understand this stuff are the developers making the games.

The 360's architecture is MUCH better than the PS3's. I'm talking about the overall architecture of the entire system. I would explain it, but I'm lazy right now. The PS3 has more peak power, but it's terribly inefficient. The 360 works at nearly 100% efficiency at all times. And there are ALOT of reasons for this. Oh, and why did you add to my post in the quote?

It's cause we really have no idea what the consoles are truly capable of. I do know that the Xbox 360 is much much easier to program for. However, the Dreamcast was also much easier to program for than the PS2, and it seemed to show, as I remember that a couple of the first wave of games did not have that great of framerates or graphics. Maybe developers will choose blu-ray over DVD, maybe they will work the cell more than the GPU. I still do not believe that the Xbox 360 has the stronger architecture than the PS3. I'm more convinced that the PS3 will eventually be the better console for gaming once the developers learn how to work out the kinks of the console. The only thing that will show that is the games itself. If games look better on the PS3, then that has the stronger architecture. If they look better on the 360, then that has the stronger architecture. Maybe VF5 will realy be the test on what the consoles are capable of. IF the PS3 has the stronger version, then the battle will continue. If they are tied, then the 360 may have just a slight advantage. If 360 is better, then PS3 will be weaker for gaming purposes. No one really knows. Analysis is all over the place right now, with almost no common ground.
#10 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
[QUOTE="Twisted_Hawk"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Twisted_Hawk"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. (True, but I believe it does this through component cables, and not HDMI.) And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. (Still, it does have twice as many SPEs as the 360's total processors.) Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. (PS3 solves this by installing the game onto the HDD, and then loading straight from the drive to decrease load times. Also, size is an important factor in the game, and if the DVD proves to be too small, then PS3 will be at a better advantage. Games like Motorstorm and Resistance already use 20+ GB's on the Blu-ray, so we will see how this turns out.) And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies. (I don't know about that one though. I do know that one SPE is used as the OS, but I don't know about the rest.)

If anything shows of the hardware, it will be the games. We'll see how it turns out this year. The only people who truly understand this stuff are the developers making the games.

The 360's architecture is MUCH better than the PS3's. I'm talking about the overall architecture of the entire system. I would explain it, but I'm lazy right now. The PS3 has more peak power, but it's terribly inefficient. The 360 works at nearly 100% efficiency at all times. And there are ALOT of reasons for this. Oh, and why did you add to my post in the quote?

It's cause we really have no idea what the consoles are truly capable of. I do know that the Xbox 360 is much much easier to program for. However, the Dreamcast was also much easier to program for than the PS2, and it seemed to show, as I remember that a couple of the first wave of games did not have that great of framerates or graphics. Maybe developers will choose blu-ray over DVD, maybe they will work the cell more than the GPU. I still do not believe that the Xbox 360 has the stronger architecture than the PS3. I'm more convinced that the PS3 will eventually be the better console for gaming once the developers learn how to work out the kinks of the console. The only thing that will show that is the games itself. If games look better on the PS3, then that has the stronger architecture. If they look better on the 360, then that has the stronger architecture. Maybe VF5 will realy be the test on what the consoles are capable of. IF the PS3 has the stronger version, then the battle will continue. If they are tied, then the 360 may have just a slight advantage. If 360 is better, then PS3 will be weaker for gaming purposes. No one really knows. Analysis is all over the place right now, with almost no common ground.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking about the power of the components, I'm talking about the efficiency of them. The overall system architecture of the PS3 was not thought out as well as it should have been. Therefore the components won't operate anywhere near their theoretical potential. The 360 however is the most efficient gaming machine ever made.
#11 Posted by SkilledArcher87 (156 posts) -
I hate to sound like a complete idiot becuase all of you made very good points but can someone please give a straight answer and just say which system is BETTER, Xbox 360 or Playstation 3?
#12 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
I hate to sound like a complete idiot becuase all of you made very good points but can someone please give a straight answer and just say which system is BETTER, Xbox 360 or Playstation 3?SkilledArcher87
They're both great systems with they're own advantages. You can't really say that one is better than the other. The 360 has the much more advanced GPU, better overall architecture, unified RAM, and better online. The PS3 has the more advanced CPU, blu-ray, faster system RAM, and HDMI. I'm getting both. I like the tech in both systems, but the 360 was thought out better.
#13 Posted by R-Dot-Yung (10193 posts) -
Its all about the games, and tbh, 360 just has more right now, more out, more coming, more exclusive
#14 Posted by laez (277 posts) -
Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

Yahiko182
Lol, that's not from a developer, that's directly from the mouth of Microsoft. I read the article months ago on IGN.
#15 Posted by laez (277 posts) -
[QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.-GeordiLaForge-
Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies.

Once again, fact less 360 arguments. The PS3 is by far the more powerful of the two systems. IBM developed both the 360 processor and the Cell and they say the cell is king... seriously, you should see some of the stuff they have it doing. The DVD drive is only faster on the outer ring and it makes no diff. anyway because 360 games makers are not allowed to cache to the HD since they sell a 360 without a hard drive. If you truly understood architecture you would understand how much of a difference HD caching makes. It actually makes the Xbox very inefficient, despite whatever it is your think. The differences btw the two GPUs are minute. The RSX is more efficient because it does not use the outdated vec4 process that was used on the 9700 cards. Vec4 takes up an entire operation even when only using two or 3 vectors, where the RSX does not have that problem (Nvidia never has). The unified shaders was a good idea in my opinion, and adds some versatility to the Xenos. The RSX does, however, cycle faster and can do 74 billion shader ops per second compared to 48 billion on the Xenos. On paper, the edge goes to the RSX, though not by tons. Both GPUs have access to 512megs of ram. Let me also say that I am not a fanboy. I have both systems and love them! That being said, I have no reason to care about which one is better. It’s just a simple fact that the PS3 is a more powerful machine.
#16 Posted by Ptolemaueus (947 posts) -
You're wasting your time posting that article.  Cows won't accept the fact that the 360 > PS3 hardware-wise and will just go on like they know more than an actual game developer who actually developed for the console.
#17 Posted by laez (277 posts) -
You're wasting your time posting that article.  Cows won't accept the fact that the 360 > PS3 hardware-wise and will just go on like they know more than an actual game developer who actually developed for the console.Ptolemaueus
ONCE AGAIN, it wasn't a developer, it was Mircrosoft. It's from an IGN article where they gave MS a chance to defend the 360 against the PS3. Go look it up pls.
#18 Posted by laez (277 posts) -

Proof that I am not bias:

My pretties! =D

#19 Posted by Ptolemaueus (947 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ptolemaueus"]You're wasting your time posting that article.  Cows won't accept the fact that the 360 > PS3 hardware-wise and will just go on like they know more than an actual game developer who actually developed for the console.laez
ONCE AGAIN, it wasn't a developer, it was Mircrosoft. It's from an IGN article where they gave MS a chance to defend the 360 against the PS3. Go look it up pls.

Ah, right.  My bad.

#20 Posted by air0123 (1411 posts) -
I like how if it is a pro 360 article it was written by Microsoft, and if it is a pro PS3 article then it was written by Playstation. I like how people read these and say they aren't true because there was another article wrote that says that one was untrue, making the second one they wrote true.
#21 Posted by rhaigun (3019 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

highlander0659
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Ok, well I see you've been reading Sony's hype.

Fist off, there are only 7 SPEs with one reserved. IBM has stated that the 8 SPE Cell will be used for medical equipment only.

Secondly, the Ana chip inside the 360 allows for native 1080p.

Lastly, as time goes on Blu-Ray might be needed, or dead. However, at this time there is NO need for it. This gen might be over by that point. This 20g game you call resistence was proven to be mostly filler. With current compression techniques, it would easily fit on DVD9.

#22 Posted by mattbbpl (10769 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

highlander0659
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

You're posting this same thing again? You've been posting the same thing for months and it's not accurate. If you're going to post this at least get the basic facts right. You could at least put the proper number of SPEs in your text (7, one reserved).
#23 Posted by sdifjds (1088 posts) -
As soon as I read the opening sentence, with him saying the 360 CPU is better than the Cell -- I stopped reading -- sorry.
#24 Posted by MentatAssassin (3007 posts) -

You're wasting your time posting that article.  Cows won't accept the fact that the 360 > PS3 hardware-wise and will just go on like they know more than an actual game developer who actually developed for the console.Ptolemaueus

This is true and the proof is in the games. If the ps3 was truely the high powered gaming machine that cows keep claimingit is, then ALL the games would have been stellar right out the gate, but they werent.

#25 Posted by sdifjds (1088 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ptolemaueus"]You're wasting your time posting that article. Cows won't accept the fact that the 360 > PS3 hardware-wise and will just go on like they know more than an actual game developer who actually developed for the console.MentatAssassin

This is true and the proof is in the games. If the ps3 was truely the high powered gaming machine that cows keep claimingit is, then ALL the games would have been stellar right out the gate, but they werent.

What kind of non-sense is that? Great hardware doesn't automatically make great games for itself, you need talented people. There were plenty of stinkers when the 360 launched, but how convenient it is to forget, 1 year and 3 months later, as opposed to just 3 months for the PS3. Oblivion is the first (of many to come) proof that the PS3 is in fact, a more powerful machine than the 360.
#26 Posted by laez (277 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ptolemaueus"]You're wasting your time posting that article.  Cows won't accept the fact that the 360 > PS3 hardware-wise and will just go on like they know more than an actual game developer who actually developed for the console.MentatAssassin

This is true and the proof is in the games. If the ps3 was truely the high powered gaming machine that cows keep claimingit is, then ALL the games would have been stellar right out the gate, but they werent.

Have you read nothing in this thread???? for the last time that article is from a MICROSOFT interview from IGN. IGN even states in the article that they do NOT endorse what MS is saying. Stop plagiarizing geeze... OF COURSE MS is going to say their system is better, just like Sony would say the PS3 is better. Get some unbiased, non- plagiarized information and then come back.
#27 Posted by StarFoxCOM (5604 posts) -
Biased
#28 Posted by laez (277 posts) -

[QUOTE="highlander0659"][QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

rhaigun

A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Ok, well I see you've been reading Sony's hype.

Fist off, there are only 7 SPEs with one reserved. IBM has stated that the 8 SPE Cell will be used for medical equipment only.

Secondly, the Ana chip inside the 360 allows for native 1080p.

Lastly, as time goes on Blu-Ray might be needed, or dead. However, at this time there is NO need for it. This gen might be over by that point. This 20g game you call resistence was proven to be mostly filler. With current compression techniques, it would easily fit on DVD9.

No, there are 7 SPEs and one is used for redundancy... It IS BEING USED.... Redundancy is what it is for, not anything else… it works EXACTLY as it was designed. Stop making crap up and rewording things to sound the way you want them to. You sound like a CNN reporter geeze.
#29 Posted by lilrush (1695 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

highlander0659
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Finally someone who has some strong points to back them and knows what they're talking about.
#30 Posted by mattbbpl (10769 posts) -
No, there are 7 SPEs and one is used for redundancy... It IS BEING USED.... Redundancy is what it is for, not anything else… it works EXACTLY as it was designed. Stop making crap up and rewording things to sound the way you want them to. You sound like a CNN reporter geeze. laez
Being used for redundancy means that if one is broken they don't have to throw the chip out. If all are ok then one will never be used because software can't be designed to access an SPE that may exist for some users but not others. It isn't being used at all - that's the point of circuit redundancy. It improves yields but decreases performance due to the presence of one less SPE.
#31 Posted by Nagidar (6231 posts) -

[QUOTE="highlander0659"][QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

lilrush
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Finally someone who has some strong points to back them and knows what they're talking about.

 No, he doesn't know what hes talking about, he copy and pastes the same crap over and over again in hopes someone will agree with him, its a fact, the PS3 has more peak processing power, but when its broken down, the PS3 barely outperforms the Xenon, it breaks down to this, the PS3 will put out about 114 TFLOPS compared to the 360's 103ish, the PS3's architecture is bottlenecking its performance. The GPU's aren't even comparable.

#32 Posted by mattbbpl (10769 posts) -
[QUOTE="highlander0659"][QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

lilrush
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Finally someone who has some strong points to back them and knows what they're talking about.

Unfortunately, he doesn't. A vector processor is RISC processor, meaning it's efficient at one type of operation but requires very inefficient work-arounds that require multiple clock cycles to perform other operations. Blu-Ray capacity for the PS3 is capped at 50GB, not 200. Blu-Ray transfer speeds vary between slower and faster than DVD9 (due to DVD9's variable transfer rate and Blu-Ray's consistent transfer rater) although DVD9 has a much faster peak transfer rate.
#33 Posted by MentatAssassin (3007 posts) -

Oblivion is the first (of many to come) proof that the PS3 is in fact, a more powerful machine than the 360. sdifjds

Your using a year old port as proof of the ps3's superiority? Man cows are desperate these days.  

#34 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="highlander0659"]A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.laez
Actually, the 360's architecture is much better. It's the most efficient gaming machine ever made. The PS3 has a better CPU, but the PS3 as a whole is an unbalanced nightmare for developers. They just didn't think a lot of things through very well. They pretty much just picked the components and threw them together without thinking about how to make them work efficiently. So even though the PS3 has the better CPU, the 360 has the better GPU and architecture, which matters more for gaming. The 360's architecture is a beautiful thing. Oh, and the 360 does 1080p as well. And there are only 7 active SPE's, with one reserved. They had to disable one due to manufacturing problems. Plus the DVD drive in the 360 is much faster than the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3. And the bandwidth between the RSX and Cell is limited due a number of things that it must be used for to make up for the RSX's deficiencies.

Once again, fact less 360 arguments. The PS3 is by far the more powerful of the two systems. IBM developed both the 360 processor and the Cell and they say the cell is king... seriously, you should see some of the stuff they have it doing. The DVD drive is only faster on the outer ring and it makes no diff. anyway because 360 games makers are not allowed to cache to the HD since they sell a 360 without a hard drive. If you truly understood architecture you would understand how much of a difference HD caching makes. It actually makes the Xbox very inefficient, despite whatever it is your think. The differences btw the two GPUs are minute. The RSX is more efficient because it does not use the outdated vec4 process that was used on the 9700 cards. Vec4 takes up an entire operation even when only using two or 3 vectors, where the RSX does not have that problem (Nvidia never has). The unified shaders was a good idea in my opinion, and adds some versatility to the Xenos. The RSX does, however, cycle faster and can do 74 billion shader ops per second compared to 48 billion on the Xenos. On paper, the edge goes to the RSX, though not by tons. Both GPUs have access to 512megs of ram. Let me also say that I am not a fanboy. I have both systems and love them! That being said, I have no reason to care about which one is better. It’s just a simple fact that the PS3 is a more powerful machine.

I never said that the PS3 didn't have more peak power. I merely touched on the fact that the 360 is a much more efficient gaming machine. And the 360 does use it's hard drive for cache, just not nearly as much as the PS3 does. Microsoft patented techniques to fit gigs worth of info into the RAM, so the pagefile is hardly ever needed. And the peak performance of the RSX makes little difference since so many cycles will get wasted through unused pipelines. And the Xenos is far superior in a lot more ways than just the unified shader architecture. The floating point processors on the EDRAM can perform AA & HDR without effecting the gpu's workload. The RSX on the other hand won't even do HDR and AA together for a long time. And the integer based HDR that it will perform will have to use a lot of the RSX's pipelines to do so. And even just performing one or the other gives a performance hit to the RSX. The only real advantage to performance that the PS3 has is the Cell, which truly is an amazing CPU. Oh, and to clear the cache on the Xbox 360, do the following: -Go to the Xbox Dashboard, select the System Blade, and select Memory. -Highlight the HD symbol and press Y. -Press X, X, Left Bumper, Right Bumper, X, X.
#35 Posted by -GeordiLaForge- (7148 posts) -
Finally someone who has some strong points to back them and knows what they're talking about. lilrush
??? That guy was wrong in A LOT of ways. Read the first page...
#37 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
lol...
#38 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
So much quoting gets annoying guys...
#39 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
Bump
#40 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
...
#41 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
too much quoting it's annoying to read.
#42 Posted by cabjnico (748 posts) -
ps3/360 fans should stop reading the vouchers presented by sony workers. seriously it gets annoying when they post numbers and numbers of raw power that the companies throw and say that x system is better than y because you read a whole bunch of stuff that you don't even get. just look at the performance of games that come out but keep it quiet until you see that minimal difference. then you can brag about it.
#43 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
well yeah, but personally I understand it and I put all the information you needed in a nut shell practically.
#44 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
...
#45 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
lol
#46 Posted by Cubs360 (3769 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

highlander0659
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

Blue Ray is not needed, Oblivion proves this theory!
#47 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
lol
#48 Posted by bluebrad1974 (5162 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yahiko182"]Well heres a hyper link to something that'll explain the differences between the two consoles. Then I'll tell you that even though it still has a couple cons it still has it's pros as well.

Heres a hyper link to a developer who knows what he's talking about read it before you read the rest of the topic.


Well here's what I think that'll keep Sony's console up there in the Console wars. Well first of all it has a better media format(blu-ray )which is better for HDMI high definition at 1080:p compared to the 360's 720p. Also Sony's system is still high-tech the graphics will still be pretty.

The 360 is a better gaming system in general and the developer actually proved his point.

Anyway heres my thread if you think differently or alike, go ahead and post.

highlander0659
A biased artile like that is irrelevant. The fine intricacies of the cell are still not known to thrid party devo. Hence, the crappy 3rd party games and excellent first party games. We all know that the PS3 is technically superior. Just a few microsoft damage control articles pop-up every now and again. 1). The cell uses pure vector processors which are alot more efficient than the 360s general purpose G5 derivatives, so they can do more at a lower clock. 2). There are 8 of them(one reserved). 3). Each SPE has its own dedicated pool of memory instead of cache. There is NO system memory. Which means that there is also no lag time between the processor and memory, speeding up the whole system. Using dedicated ram instead of cache also helps to make the processor run closer to its 'paper' speeds by getting rid of inefficiencies inherent in cache. 4). It has INSANE system bandwidth. This means that it can interact with the other parts with less lag time and more information can be transmitted between them. 5). As a vector processor it can also render graphics. Meaning it can help the gpu do its job if it has some free time. 6). Blu-ray can hold more data and transfer that data faster than dvd and hd dvd. They are also researching multi layer discs that currently hold 200GB. 7). 1080p, is just damn sexy. 1920x1080 without interlacing. kinda puts the 360s 1080i in the shade. For those that dont know 1080i takes about as much horsepower as about 540p and doesnt look anywhere near as good. -That's seven reasons why the PS3 is technically superior. Oh yeah and the 360 will become even more crippled due to the fact that it doesn't support a high-def format(it's HD-DVD extension only deals with movies). As time goes on Blu-Ray will become more and more necessary for gaming. Consider that games of the current generation have to use DVD5 or DVD9 for all of their content. So roughly the storage medium is 100 times larger than the main RAM of the unit. Although they could, it's rare that a current gen title would take the option of pressing on CD for example. Next generation machines have ~512MB RAM on board, so a DVD5 or DVD9 is only 10-20 times the size of main RAM. Why is the ratio important? Many games use streaming, so a single level can require many times the amount of data needed to fill the main RAM of the console. The quality of the content in the future is only increasing, and that the filesizes will follow. Don't forget the streaming audio too. Dialog may be translated to multiple languages especially if a title is for multiple territories. Some audio may be surround sound, so that will push up the size. It's also worth considering HD video especially if it's 1080p @ 60Hz at high quality. The problem this presents is that the current DVD formats use a larger laser, allowing them to store less data in the same space a smaller laser, like the one in a Blu-ray player, can store and read. This already has become a problem. Games like Resistance are starting to emerge that take upwards of 20GB.

If anyone thinks that the Cell's design is ideal for gaming solutions, then the word ignorant comes to mind. The Cell was designed around blu-ray. Sony originally wanted to use the Cell for a CPU and GPU. They tried for 2 years to get the Cell to do 3D graphics. And found out that they couldn't.It has nothing to do with the developers. After that Sony quickly slapped an outdated GPU (RSX) in the PS3.
#49 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
Ohh I see but the thing is the GPU isn't that outdated it's more like a 7900 GS which at the times really wasn't all that bad...
#50 Posted by Yahiko182 (599 posts) -
When Sony wanted to build a CPU/GPU I don't think that was a very smart thing and they started development for a graphics card with Nvidia for 2 years 2 years before the Nvidia 7 series.