Question about last generation

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for TheRealBigRich
#1 Posted by TheRealBigRich (784 posts) -

I know this is a last generation question but did we ever get a answer to whether the ps3 or Xbox 360 was more powerful and buy how much ?

Avatar image for lostrib
#2 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

1 billion percent!

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#3 Posted by MonsieurX (36672 posts) -

PS3 had a better CPU,360 had a better gpu

Avatar image for R3FURBISHED
#4 Posted by R3FURBISHED (12331 posts) -

PS3 I believe. It was just a matter of developers not being able to properly utilize the hardware.

Avatar image for TheRealBigRich
#5 Posted by TheRealBigRich (784 posts) -

Yeah they couldn't utilize the hardware of the ps3 properly at first and but by the end of the generation all the games were pretty much equal . I realize the CPU was better on ps3 and Xbox had the better gpu but they had to have a power difference right ?

Avatar image for darkangel115
#6 Edited by darkangel115 (4444 posts) -

For the most part all MPs ran better on 360. The exclusives were about equal. The 360 was a little more powerful but not a major difference. Just like this gen. The last time there was a major difference in power was the original xbox compared to the PS2. After that its been close enough to not be a big deal to anyone outside of fanboys trying to justify their purchase

Avatar image for R3FURBISHED
#7 Edited by R3FURBISHED (12331 posts) -

@TheRealBigRich said:

Yeah they couldn't utilize the hardware of the ps3 properly at first and but by the end of the generation all the games were pretty much equal . I realize the CPU was better on ps3 and Xbox had the better gpu but they had to have a power difference right ?

From Wikipeida:

PS3

  • CPU: Cell Broadband Engine (3.2 GHz Power Architecture-based PPE with seven 3.2 GHz SPEs)
  • GPU: 550 MHz RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'(based on NVIDIA G70 architecture)
  • Memory: 256 MB XDR @ 3.2 GHz and 256 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz

Xbox 360

  • CPU: 3.2 GHz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon"
  • GPU: 500 MHz codenamed "Xenos" (ATI custom design)
  • Memory: 512 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz shared between CPU & GPU with 10 MB EDRAM GPU frame buffer memory
Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
#8 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (12561 posts) -

Neither. The Wii was more powerful than both. Better graphics in Nintendo's games.

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#9 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@R3FURBISHED said:

@TheRealBigRich said:

Yeah they couldn't utilize the hardware of the ps3 properly at first and but by the end of the generation all the games were pretty much equal . I realize the CPU was better on ps3 and Xbox had the better gpu but they had to have a power difference right ?

From Wikipeida:

PS3

  • CPU: Cell Broadband Engine (3.2 GHz Power Architecture-based PPE with seven 3.2 GHz SPEs)
  • GPU: 550 MHz RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'(based on NVIDIA G70 architecture)
  • Memory: 256 MB XDR @ 3.2 GHz and 256 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz

Xbox 360

  • CPU: 3.2 GHz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon"
  • GPU: 500 MHz codenamed "Xenos" (ATI custom design)
  • Memory: 512 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz shared between CPU & GPU with 10 MB EDRAM GPU frame buffer memory

with an end result that typically turned out pretty similar (depending on the workload type)

the real big rich. glad to make your acquaintance.

the question you're asking ... unfortunately it does not have a simple answer. we could hear great debate from informed people supporting each machine, and they'd each make a strong case.

Avatar image for TheRealBigRich
#11 Edited by TheRealBigRich (784 posts) -

Hmm well I guess this well never be answered. I know from owning both I always thought the ps3 would be able to produce the best performance but into the End I guess we will never truly know

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
#12 Posted by deactivated-59b71619573a1 (38222 posts) -

One does some things better, the other does other things better. There is no overall better system but the PS3 was helped by many amazingly talented studios who can make very very pretty games and it made it seem stronger

Avatar image for PAL360
#13 Edited by PAL360 (28685 posts) -

PS3 had a better CPU and bluray player. 360 had a better GPU and a better RAM solution. They were pretty much at the same level.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#14 Posted by foxhound_fox (96559 posts) -

PS3 had better theoretical power.

360 had better practical power.

Evidence: Greater than 90% of multiplats were superior (some quite noticeably) on 360.

Avatar image for kinectthedots
#15 Edited by kinectthedots (3383 posts) -
@seanmcloughlin said:

One does some things better, the other does other things better. There is no overall better system but the PS3 was helped by many amazingly talented studios who can make very very pretty games and it made it seem stronger

lol, some of you guys are full of nutty hair brained excuses when trying to downplay something Playstation related.

Talented studios made PS3 *seem* stronger? LMAO, so according to SW nintendo should have the best looking exclusives known to man, am I right!!

Just stop with the mindless excuses to downplay the system, these talented studios, as you call them, were simply able to extract the power that PS3 actually had to "show" how strong it really was. Art Style doesn't replace raw graphics (again see nintendo)

So there is no "seem" about it, the multiple graphics awards and universal praise PS3 exclusives consistently got from unbiased sources proclaiming them to have the best looking graphics seen on consoles spoke more to the untapped power of the PS3 hardware than simply the talent of the devs. (again if there is merit to that claim then Nintendo games should be the best looking games ever regardless of hardware).