http://xbox360vsps3.org/2010/05/more-powerful-ps3-xbox-360-has-better-development-tools/ "In a recent interview in G4tv, John Carmack, coding genius of id software has made some statements regarding the issue of PS3 and Xbox 360. Although this is only the opinion of a developer of high-profile, his opinion should be much more valid than the millions of posts in the Forum on the topic. Basically, says that the PS3 is more powerful, but the 360 has better development tools." "Speaking of power hardware Carmack said that "the hardware is comparable", but said that "PS3 is probably marginally more powerful in terms of raw flops and graphics operations". More specifically, when it says the hardware is comparible, my friend thought it meant that the 360 was equal to the PS3 in terms of power, but John Carmack specifically states that the PS3 though is "marginally more powerful than the 360"
im not into this whole my console is more powerful but from what ive read and heard the 360 has a better GPU and the PS3 has a better CPU so one console is more powerful than the other in certain areas tbh the difference is tiny compared to last gen where there was big gaps between sony and MS
im not into this whole my console is more powerful but from what ive read and heard the 360 has a better GPU and the PS3 has a better CPU so one console is more powerful than the other in certain areas tbh the difference is tiny compared to last gen where there was big gaps between sony and MS
icyseanfitz
While the 360 does ahave a better GPU in most cases, the PS3's GPU can off-load graphical tasks onto the Cell processor, allowing the RSX (PS3's GPU) to perform at maximum efficiency and the Cell can do some very advanced post-processing and tasks such as morphilogical anti-aliasing. Besides, John Carmack just stated that the PS3 is still marginally more powerful than the 360
and just saw who the dev is /facepalm he has never done anything on the 360 so how can he say
icyseanfitz
Oh wow so now Carmack is a clueless dev, now I've heard it all :P Carmack is a living legend dude, he's making possibly the best looking 360 game Rage and has made overall graphics kings like Doom 3.
and just saw who the dev is /facepalm he has never done anything on the 360 so how can he say
justsayin117
....:/. He is creating Rage for the PS3, PC, 360, and MAC... You need to make the Title more Epic imo, put Something like Carmack: PS3 IS MORE POWERFULL, From the Legend Himself!!! 56kBOOM! :lol: :D
On topic - in another interview he actually said the 360 is better at graphics calculations than the PS3,but when the cell is factored in it gave the PS3 a slight theoretical edge.
The impression he gives off ,is that he prefers the 360 because ,as he sees it, the power difference between the two consoles is quite small,but the ease of developing on them is quite large and in the 360's favour.
On topic - in another interview he actually said the 360 is better at graphics calculations than the PS3,but when the cell is factored in it gave the PS3 a slight theoretical edge.
The impression he gives off ,is that he prefers the 360 because ,as he sees it, the power difference between the two consoles is quite small,but the ease of developing on them is quite large and in the 360's favour.
The 360 is easier to dev for, this has been known since 2005, we've also known since the PS3's launch that it's more powerfull, yet many people keep denying that. This thread once again proves the truth.
On topic - in another interview he actually said the 360 is better at graphics calculations than the PS3,but when the cell is factored in it gave the PS3 a slight theoretical edge.
The impression he gives off ,is that he prefers the 360 because ,as he sees it, the power difference between the two consoles is quite small,but the ease of developing on them is quite large and in the 360's favour.
Again from an above post "While the 360 does a have a better GPU in most cases, the PS3's GPU can off-load graphical tasks onto the Cell processor, allowing the RSX (PS3's GPU) to perform at maximum efficiency and the Cell can do some very advanced post-processing and tasks such as morphilogical anti-aliasing. John Carmack also states that says that the PS3 is factually marginally more powerful, but the 360 has better development tools, which is the reason its easier to develop games on the 360
I'd imagine for the price difference and the year release difference this would be true ...
A marginal difference theoretical calculations yet a **** to work with. Sounds right on ... Like we've all known since ever.
The difference in power between the two is so small it's pointless. The big advabtage the PS3 has is devs that wills trive to utilize it's power. MS have now devs that can, or will do this.
They are close enough that arguing is pretty pointless.Hahadouken
judging from exclusives such as Infamous 2, Uncharted 2 among thieves, God of War 3, Killzone 2, killzone 3, Gran turismo 5, The Last Guardian, Resistance 3( If those shots are in-game), the difference is substantial
Well, Carmack is one of the (if not THE) most talented programmer(s) in the world when it comes to video games. And since he's spent the last few years making RAGE run absolutely beautifully on just about every system, I'm more inclined to believe him than say, some unknown guy at a first party studio.
Good for the PS3, but it doesn't really change all that much. The tech came out a year later. It SHOULD be better.
On topic - in another interview he actually said the 360 is better at graphics calculations than the PS3,but when the cell is factored in it gave the PS3 a slight theoretical edge.
The impression he gives off ,is that he prefers the 360 because ,as he sees it, the power difference between the two consoles is quite small,but the ease of developing on them is quite large and in the 360's favour.
Again from an above post "While the 360 does a have a better GPU in most cases, the PS3's GPU can off-load graphical tasks onto the Cell processor, allowing the RSX (PS3's GPU) to perform at maximum efficiency and the Cell can do some very advanced post-processing and tasks such as morphilogical anti-aliasing. John Carmack also states that says that the PS3 is factually marginally more powerful, but the 360 has better development tools, which is the reason its easier to develop games on the 360
Well, Carmack is one of the (if not THE) most talented programmer(s) in the world when it comes to video games. And since he's spent the last few years making RAGE run absolutely beautifully on just about every system, I'm more inclined to believe him than say, some unknown guy at a first party studio.
Good for the PS3, but it doesn't really change all that much. The tech came out a year later. It SHOULD be better.
well, at least the Ps3 has the best exclusives when comparing to the 360 and WII (On Metacritic at least), and the PS3 is obtaining a huge amount of fantastic exclusives next year, compared to the drought the 360 is going throough these past few years
On topic - in another interview he actually said the 360 is better at graphics calculations than the PS3,but when the cell is factored in it gave the PS3 a slight theoretical edge.
The impression he gives off ,is that he prefers the 360 because ,as he sees it, the power difference between the two consoles is quite small,but the ease of developing on them is quite large and in the 360's favour.
Again from an above post "While the 360 does a have a better GPU in most cases, the PS3's GPU can off-load graphical tasks onto the Cell processor, allowing the RSX (PS3's GPU) to perform at maximum efficiency and the Cell can do some very advanced post-processing and tasks such as morphilogical anti-aliasing. John Carmack also states that says that the PS3 is factually marginally more powerful, but the 360 has better development tools, which is the reason its easier to develop games on the 360
Nuff said.
That was 2008, a time when he probably wasnt sure how to code efficiently for the cell architecture, while my arguement is based around factual and obvious information in 2010
and just saw who the dev is /facepalm he has never done anything on the 360 so how can he say
Insecticidius
Oh wow so now Carmack is a clueless dev, now I've heard it all :P Carmack is a living legend dude, he's making possibly the best looking 360 game Rage and has made overall graphics kings like Doom 3. Oh wow so now he's an amazing dev who created the masterpiece(or pile of crap) Doom 3?
Well, Carmack is one of the (if not THE) most talented programmer(s) in the world when it comes to video games. And since he's spent the last few years making RAGE run absolutely beautifully on just about every system, I'm more inclined to believe him than say, some unknown guy at a first party studio.
Good for the PS3, but it doesn't really change all that much. The tech came out a year later. It SHOULD be better.
well, at least the Ps3 has the best exclusives when comparing to the 360 and WII (On Metacritic at least), and the PS3 is obtaining a huge amount of fantastic exclusives next year, compared to the drought the 360 is going throough these past few years What does that have to do with the power of the console?
Well, Carmack is one of the (if not THE) most talented programmer(s) in the world when it comes to video games. And since he's spent the last few years making RAGE run absolutely beautifully on just about every system, I'm more inclined to believe him than say, some unknown guy at a first party studio.
Good for the PS3, but it doesn't really change all that much. The tech came out a year later. It SHOULD be better.
well, at least the Ps3 has the best exclusives when comparing to the 360 and WII (On Metacritic at least), and the PS3 is obtaining a huge amount of fantastic exclusives next year, compared to the drought the 360 is going throough these past few years What does that have to do with the power of the console? your saying that tech doesnt matter, while somewhat true, the PS3 has better exclusives than Wii or 360, which is more important than tech
I dont think this is such an ownage...in terms of flops cell whipped floor with xenon back in 2005 and Carmack said it,he is always honest.But he also stated while cpu is of course better that when it comes to pushing graphics 360 has upper hand.
http://uk.gear.ign.com/articles/111/1116182p1.html This basically shows what he says, PS3 has more flops and slightly more graphics operations.... This link has been posted a million times. And to be honest... Who cares? I got my games that i want and more to come so i don't really care about which is most powerful, as long as it suites me.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="justsayin117"] well, at least the Ps3 has the best exclusives when comparing to the 360 and WII (On Metacritic at least), and the PS3 is obtaining a huge amount of fantastic exclusives next year, compared to the drought the 360 is going throough these past few yearsjustsayin117
What does that have to do with the power of the console? your saying that tech doesnt matter, while somewhat true, the PS3 has better exclusives than Wii or 360, which is more important than tech That's funny, considering SMG1 and 2 are higher than any PS3 exclusive on MetaCritic. And even then, quality is subjective. I prefer Reach to Uncharted, and I will swear up and down that it is the better game, but again, that's an opinion. While it's nice that Sony has the first party support that they do for the PS3, that doesn't mean that it's the "best" console. There's really no such thing.
[QUOTE="justsayin117"] Again from an above post "While the 360 does a have a better GPU in most cases, the PS3's GPU can off-load graphical tasks onto the Cell processor, allowing the RSX (PS3's GPU) to perform at maximum efficiency and the Cell can do some very advanced post-processing and tasks such as morphilogical anti-aliasing. John Carmack also states that says that the PS3 is factually marginally more powerful, but the 360 has better development tools, which is the reason its easier to develop games on the 360justsayin117
Nuff said.
That was 2008, a time when he probably wasnt sure how to code efficiently for the cell architecture, while my arguement is based around factual and obvious information in 2010
This is factual as 2008 is factual.Thing is he NEVER said that ps3 is not bit more powerful when it comes to theoretical power(FLOPS) which he now confirmed for 10th time probably bu he aslo said that 360 gpu has upper hand when it comes to pushing polygons and pixels on screen.Those things dont change...neither cell pushes pixels and polys on screen but RSX.RAGE(at least according to him) still has easier time running at 60fps on 360 than ps3...
and just saw who the dev is /facepalm he has never done anything on the 360 so how can he say
icyseanfitz
Hes a programing mastermind i.e. ID TECH and an amazing developer. Not to mention hes a the lead engineer and founder of an aerospace company. I don't think there is a better programmer than Carmack
Yeah, I saw this posted a while ago, PS3 being marginally more powerful is what I thought for a while now, they are still so close it's lame to argue about now, especially 5 years later.
i'm guessing cows will just ignore the part where he again states the ps3 is hard to develop for, seeing asthough whenever any other devs has said that cows just label them completely incompetent. so is he right or wrong? or are we just going to cherry-pick one statement (from an oldhe-said-she-said source i might add) and hope nobody notices the rest :roll:
and just saw who the dev is /facepalm he has never done anything on the 360 so how can he say
drspudz
Oh wow so now Carmack is a clueless dev, now I've heard it all :P Carmack is a living legend dude, he's making possibly the best looking 360 game Rage and has made overall graphics kings like Doom 3. Oh wow so now he's an amazing dev who created the masterpiece(or pile of crap) Doom 3?Graphics master yes he is, wether you like his games or not doens't matter.
Log in to comment