:lol: i bet your a noob at home theater setup i'll bet you don't even know what a laser disc is....... i'll bet you have a crappy hdtv that can only scale to 720p and have a crappy 5.1 surround sound dude my setup would kill anyone's setup so please dont try to tell me theres no diffrence between hdmi and componet

lilboy561

This post is simply silly. What does knowledge of a format that has been obsolete for a decade have to do with anything? What does the amount of money one spends on a setup have to do with anything? Absolutely nothing.

HDMI and Component are not significantly different at 720p.

At 1080p, HDMI is probably a win simply because very few pieces of hardware take 1080p signals over component.

The larger factor may be your wiring. For example, I wish I had an HDMI 360, because my audio receiever only has one digital input. However, my TV has a digital out and 3 HDMI ins. So I could route multiple digital audio signals if I could run everything via HDMI into my TV vs needs a digital audio switcher.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it get a 9.5, but I would be *shocked* if it got a 10.

Even in the best possible world, I think it'd fall below 10 for graphics alone.

OP... don't even try to pull the "but I have a job!" card. I guarantee you that there are dozens of people on this forum right now who make vastly more money than you do. And even if that mattered, plenty of people with money still couldn't tell their bum from a hole in the ground.

Every console maker offers *significant* financial incentive to studios to produce games for them. This is nothing new, it's been done for ages and will be done forever. Given the licensing fee per copy on console games, if the platform holders *didn't* offer incentives to the devs, they'd probably make *everything* for PC. Please do some basic research on how the business works and where money commonly changes hands and why before making another post like this in the future.

But this topic is not just about graphics eather, it is why the xbox 360 is better than the Ps3, and that is why i posted that comment, the four things a console should be is, Affordable, Better than any other console, to what the consumer wants it to do and be reliable.

The xbox 360 is affordable, more affordable than the Ps3, and thats why much more consoles were sold.

Better than any other console, well we are settling this now

Do what the consumer wants it to do, the 360 does everything well, including online play.

Reliable, this is the only front that the 360 fails catoostrophically at, but M$ are doing some thing about it, and by doing something about it they are loosing millions, but they are showing they are willing to bite the bullet where they went wrong.

FireFox-360

This topic is exactly about which is more powerful. The videos that you linked, minus a short bit of sales figure (who cares) go on endlessly about the graphical abilities of the systems. Stop trying to change your argument just because you've been proven wrong.

Runningflame, thanks for writing that. I didn't want to bother to actually line by line them.

You also didn't mention that there is much more than 512k of L1 cache for Cell, since there is an additional 256k of local storage per SPE, which equates to more than double the L1 cache for Xenon.

Additionally, another thing to remember is that the 360's EDRAM is not a bonus, it's a requirement. If screenbuffer traffic had to go over main RAM, the entire graphics pipeline would be broken.

The fact that the things that people want to be better are better than the previous console, Ps3 put so many things on the console that were not needed and very expensive.FireFox-360

What does this have to do with anything? This discussion is over which console has more potential power when it comes to the ability to push out realtime graphics. Your comment doesn't address it at all.

Now go to this link and you will see the offical stats of the xbox 360 and the PS3,

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6125087/index.html?type=tech

It is a gamespot link and you will see that the xbox 360 is better,

FireFox-360

Putting aside the fact that these numbers are extremely old, and incorrect. What about them do you think demonstrates superiority of one console over the other?

That came out a bit muddled up, but i will post a new one in a minute, the information is from gamespot so you know it will be reliable and now you will see that the important info was right.FireFox-360

You still don't get it. There is much more to these systems than the clock speed of the CPU and GPU. These statistics are meaningless because they tell you absolutely nothing about where parts of the system start to fall over due to bottlenecks, or capabilities of the system that can be used to defeat something that may seem like a bottleneck somewhere else.

Order of magnitude differences in bandwidth, memory, or chip speed will typically be a pretty clear indicator of when one system will typically outperform another, but with systems as close as the PS3 and the 360, you have to dig a lot deeper than some press numbers. You have obviously been terribly misinformed about how these systems work and what developers are doing with them, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the PS3 is capable of more across the board, even if not by a particularly large margin.