Graphics: Xbox 360 vs PS3

[MentatYP]

You're absolutely right here, but you do have to understand the needs of the market as a whole. Most aren't interested in 1080p with lossless TrueHD. Consider the massive adoption of MP3/iTunes, and then consider the ultimate failure of DVD-Audio and particularly of SACD, and you'll understand that most aren't concerned with sound at all. We have two formats that allow us to experience music in ways we have never experienced it before, but, unfortunately, nobody really cares. Most consumers aren't interested in over-complication, nor do they want price hikes.

While you and I may want 50GB optical media, most consumers just want something that fits their needs, and HD-DVD does that well and does it cheaper.

Precisely right, which is why I thought it a tad ridiculous that so many so-called techies aren't backing BD to succeed. We sure are a spiteful lot. So spiteful in fact, that we would cut off our nose to spite our face, which is the case in techies hoping for BD to fail.

I am painfully aware of the lack of demand for anything of true quality. I've been an SACD fan since the early days of the format (still have a Sony SCD-C555ES), and still routinely listen to SACDs. Almost every time I do so I'm reminded of how the general public much prefers convenience and quantity over quality, as is evidenced by the boom of portable MP3 players and the slow but sure demise of high-res audio. When something is "good enough", if it's cheaper than the alternative then why bother?

HD disc tech in general is a different story. HD TV set sales are sufficiently large to have penetrated a considerable portion of the market, making HD discs viable. More importantly the advantages of HD over SD are clearly visible, even on the cheapest HD sets. The same cannot be said for high-res audio, as one needs decent audio components and speakers to tell the difference. In a market where Bose is king, it's no wonder high-res audio is doomed to be a niche product. I'll just be glad if it stays afloat as a niche product instead of fading away.

I'm not saying that BD will win because it's superior tech. One just has to look back at Betamax vs. VHS to see how that worked out. In fact I'm not making any predictions at all. I'm just saying that as techies we should have a desire for BD to succeed over HD-DVD because it's better tech.

 

[phide]

It looks like we're in total agreeance. Blu-ray is a superior format, and it should rightly win. I suppose, though, that I don't care if either of them win so long as one wins -- I dread a multi-format "society", which is one of many reasons why DVD-Audio and SACD are in the states they are currently in. Hopefully there will be an eventual concession from one, and I hope it's from the DVD Forum.

Unfortunately, I'd rather accept compressed audio than two formats at this point. Tough to swallow, but life ain't easy

 

[bobrownik]

I think the PS3 will really shine when the developers start using the cell for extreme physics.

physics wont do the ps3 any good if the rsx cant draw the visuals at a decent frame rate,
but yes, it will be a cool slide show

PS3 and xbox seem even with graphics power

EVEN? lolz ,.... anyone claiming that the gpu based off of 7800gtx is even with a gpu based off of r600 is a fool , hahaha even?, not even close.

CPU power the PS3 seems like it blows the xbox 360 out of the water with its 3 core CPU.

another lolz, have you even read anything about the ps3 cpu? i think not,
yes, it can be a little better for optimizing "some" code, but paired with the crappy rsx gpu, dont expect miracles.

Sony pulled a number game on YOU, they will be lucky if ps3 can actually pull 40% of the numbers they claimed the ps3 hardware is capable of.

 

[phide]

physics wont do the ps3 any good if the rsx cant draw the visuals at a decent frame rate, but yes, it will be a cool slide show

Gameplay-oriented physics and effects physics are two entirely different things (essentially). A renderer doesn't care how an object is moving or how fast.

EVEN? lolz ,.... anyone claiming that the gpu based off of 7800gtx is even with a gpu based off of r600 is a fool , hahaha even?, not even close.

Firstly, the 7800 GTX isn't a GPU. Secondly, C1 and R600 are certainly not the same. They may be architecturally similar in some respects, but that doesn't mean that they are similar in capability or performance, nor does it mean that one is "based off" the other. They probably function in similar ways, but that's the only thing they may share. Performance can and will be radically different.

another lolz, have you even read anything about the ps3 cpu? i think not,
yes, it can be a little better for optimizing "some" code, but paired with the crappy rsx gpu, dont expect miracles.

Cell has the capability to surpass the processing prowess of Xenon, but it requires a more complex approach to wring that performance out. I'm pretty confident it will happen at some point, though I don't think the price tag is worth it. Sony made a gamble, and I think it was a poor one, but the PS3 still isn't too bad a buy (if you could buy it, that is).

 

[aaaaaaaaaaandy]

Gameplay-oriented physics and effects physics are two entirely different things (essentially). A renderer doesn't care how an object is moving or how fast.


Firstly, the 7800 GTX isn't a GPU. Secondly, C1 and R600 are certainly not the same. They may be architecturally similar in some respects, but that doesn't mean that they are similar in capability or performance, nor does it mean that one is "based off" the other. They probably function in similar ways, but that's the only thing they may share. Performance can and will be radically different.


Cell has the capability to surpass the processing prowess of Xenon, but it requires a more complex approach to wring that performance out. I'm pretty confident it will happen at some point, though I don't think the price tag is worth it. Sony made a gamble, and I think it was a poor one, but the PS3 still isn't too bad a buy (if you could buy it, that is).

amen.

 

[bobrownik]

Gameplay-oriented physics and effects physics are two entirely different things (essentially). A renderer doesn't care how an object is moving or how fast.

ohh,
i see what you are saying, ps3 developers will only optimize the physics that don't bring the rsx to its knees, hey, what a good idea, that way we all benefit , we will have "some" optimized physics but on the other hand we will still have the 20fps from ps3, i say cool

Firstly, the 7800 GTX isn't a GPU. Secondly, C1 and R600 are certainly not the same. They may be architecturally similar in some respects, but that doesn't mean that they are similar in capability or performance, nor does it mean that one is "based off" the other. They probably function in similar ways, but that's the only thing they may share. Performance can and will be radically different.

ok, now you're just getting stupid, nowhere in there i said that 7800 is a gpu,
perhaps you should brush up on your reading skillz,

you can argue all you want how much different the gpus are from the architecture they derived from, the truth is, rsx was built from the g70 and xenos was built from r600,

i wont argue that they are similar feature wise, but performance wise the rsx doesn't compare.

Cell has the capability to surpass the processing prowess of Xenon, but it requires a more complex approach to wring that performance out. I'm pretty confident it will happen at some point, though I don't think the price tag is worth it. Sony made a gamble, and I think it was a poor one, but the PS3 still isn't too bad a buy (if you could buy it, that is).

nothing to add here , like i said, the ps3 cpu is a little better

 

[MentatYP]

ohh,
i see what you are saying, ps3 developers will only optimize the physics that don't bring the rsx to its knees, hey, what a good idea, that way we all benefit , we will have "some" optimized physics but on the other hand we will still have the 20fps from ps3, i say cool

...

ok, now you're just getting stupid, nowhere in there i said that 7800 is a gpu,
perhaps you should brush up on your reading skillz

Nothing like exaggerating ("20 fps from the ps3") and name-calling ("stupid") to make an intelligent argument, eh? When it gets to that point, it's pretty obvious that no level of civilized debate will make a dent in your position, so why bother? I don't personally have a dog in this fight--I own both an Xbox and PS2, and will get both a 360 and PS3 once prices come down--but I felt like chiming in because it's funny when people stoop to making ridiculous claims and personal attacks to make a point. The only point you've made is that you have no intention of hearing what anybody has to say that's opposite of your viewpoint.

Enjoy the thread while it lasts. Hope you get your kicks before it gets locked.

 

[AtomicFire]

beyond the flaming, it all comes down to the games. A console is worth only what the games are.

Take these for example:

Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS - simple game that has simple graphics that you can call barely 3D. THe DS is only a bit more powerful than an advance, much less powerful than a PSP. But, its the best selling handheld in the world right now. Even now NIntendo can't keep up with demand. My local Wal-Mart goes out of stock days after they get a new shipment in.

God of war - Great game, released close to the end of the life of the PS2. Made the PS2 do things most people didn't think a PS2 could do. If you've been reading the X360 - PS3 reivews - just think this. The Xbox has been out a lot longer then then PS3 - the developers know how to work with it. And it uses DirectX interfaces, simplifying programming. The PS3 is (what I heard) difficult to program for, but on paper is just as powerful, if not more powerful, than an xbox 360. Wait a year, then compare the two!

Nintendo Wii - Hardware wise this is an inferior console. Its barely faster than a 1st gen Xbox. However, the games that were relased on it make it one of the best selling consoles this season. Zelda, Trauma Room (if you're into it), and Wii Sports are great games that people love

 

[crazjayz]

beyond the flaming, it all comes down to the games. A console is worth only what the games are.

Take these for example:

Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS - simple game that has simple graphics that you can call barely 3D. THe DS is only a bit more powerful than an advance, much less powerful than a PSP. But, its the best selling handheld in the world right now. Even now NIntendo can't keep up with demand. My local Wal-Mart goes out of stock days after they get a new shipment in.

God of war - Great game, released close to the end of the life of the PS2. Made the PS2 do things most people didn't think a PS2 could do. If you've been reading the X360 - PS3 reivews - just think this. The Xbox has been out a lot longer then then PS3 - the developers know how to work with it. And it uses DirectX interfaces, simplifying programming. The PS3 is (what I heard) difficult to program for, but on paper is just as powerful, if not more powerful, than an xbox 360. Wait a year, then compare the two!

Nintendo Wii - Hardware wise this is an inferior console. Its barely faster than a 1st gen Xbox. However, the games that were relased on it make it one of the best selling consoles this season. Zelda, Trauma Room (if you're into it), and Wii Sports are great games that people love

QFT. It doesn't matter how much horsepower you have under the hood if you can't drive the car. The games are what drive the long-run sales numbers of the systems. As far as graphics goes, personally, I believe that the PS3 can edge out the X360 in the long run when developers finally get the hang of programming for the PS3 and optimize for the cell processor. But seriously, the graphics are essentially the same when you look at pre-rendered stuff for both systems.

 

[bobrownik]

Hope you get your kicks before it gets locked.

im getting my kicks, especially from your post, because it seem like you too need some brushing up on your reading skillz,

or maybe its the comprehension,

whatever it is, you are lacking the ability to understand what you are reading


and another one for phide

 

[MentatYP]

QFT. It doesn't matter how much horsepower you have under the hood if you can't drive the car. The games are what drive the long-run sales numbers of the systems. As far as graphics goes, personally, I believe that the PS3 can edge out the X360 in the long run when developers finally get the hang of programming for the PS3 and optimize for the cell processor. But seriously, the graphics are essentially the same when you look at pre-rendered stuff for both systems.

Pre-rendered stuff isn't really a good indicator. PS2 pre-rendered (Final Fantasy series, for instance), looks just as good as on the 360 or PS3. It doesn't take a powerhouse to show what is essentially straight video.

I think on paper the nod has to go to the 360. It's been out a year longer so devs have a better feel for what it can do, and raw power-wise it would be very strange if all those superior numbers didn't add up to better performance.

 

[vietkangta]

the reason it is so hyped is because there is no better console fps. why is cs so hyped? because its the best pc fps. i guess cs isnt that great either...

and well, i almost am one of those people. i did pretty much buy a 360 for halo3. but i do buy other games to hold me off until then. its not really like i bought it "only" for halo. and i would like to know of a ps3 game that might beat it? maybe it cant beat all of them together obviously, but i really dont see any ps3 game coming out that can beat it in gameplay. graphics right now on ps3 are not better, and games in both systems are only going to progress. even if the ps3 games were prettier, thats a really dumb reason to buy a specific console.

By your logic, it doesnt make cs not as great of a game. I was saying why is halo so hyped as in people making it as if it is better than all fps out there. And halos' gameplay isnt much different from other games, What can it do that other fps can't do. Anyway its all opinions anway. And all these people saying that xbox360 has a whole bunch of good games lined up. Some of these game only looks good and no one knows how good it actually is and putting down the ps3's games because of that reason.

 

[vietkangta]

Did you guys get the technical data specs with theoretical bandwith capabilities of both systems? I posted it quite a while ago in the other ps3 graphics vs 360 graphics thread over in the gaming forum.

Xbox 360 vs. PS3

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

arent these these the theorectical specs that came out in june 2006?

 

[crazjayz]

I was saying why is halo so hyped as in people making it as if it is better than all fps out there. And halos' gameplay isnt much different from other games, What can it do that other fps can't do.

I'm not going to say Halo is the best FPS ever, oh hell no. And I'm not going to say that mice+keyboard is unbeatable, because sometimes it just doesn't work as well. What I am going to say that Halo's selling point was it's multiplayer. On Xbox, it was the first game of it's kind to actually show off Microsoft's online plans with XboxLive. On the Xbox360, the game was just stepped up once again, both in terms of gameplay and integration into XboxLive. There's two things going for Halo right now and that's 1) amazing online support and 2) a myriad of gameplay types. I don't know of many other games that you can boot up, sign online, find your friends (if they're online as well), leave them a message of what you're playing, have them join you, and just go and kick some ass, all in about 5 minutes. There's an integration factor that I just love about XboxLive.

Oh, and by the paragraph above, some my consider me an Xbox/MS !!!!!!. Sorry to say, I've never owned and Xbox or a Xbox360. All my cousins have, but not I. I am a Sony man. But I don't say this because "Ooo, Sony's better" or anything of the sort, rather, I feel that both system cater to different types of gamers (but that's a whole 'nother story)

And finally, can anyone point me to a FPS that can do the "dual-wielding" that Halo does oh so very well? For some reason I feel it's a first of it's kind.

 

[aaaaaaaaaaandy]

By your logic, it doesnt make cs not as great of a game. I was saying why is halo so hyped as in people making it as if it is better than all fps out there. And halos' gameplay isnt much different from other games, What can it do that other fps can't do. Anyway its all opinions anway. And all these people saying that xbox360 has a whole bunch of good games lined up. Some of these game only looks good and no one knows how good it actually is and putting down the ps3's games because of that reason.

first of all. from what i hear, people say that halo is the best CONSOLE fps out there. and not the best fps. what it does do that other console fps cant do is, nothing is wrong. there is nothing wrong with the game, making it better then the others. and the game play is MUCH different then other console fps. if it were the same, then there wouldnt be a hype. i could care less about stories in games and halo my favorite console game. i ask for you to name another game that can compare to halo in game play. and it is not just halo2 that was so successful in the multiplayer aspect, if you payed attention at all to halo 1 multiplayer, you would see how successful it was even though it did not have online. the only reason halo2 was brought to so much popularity was because of xbl. if it were not for that, it would not change the greatness of it. it would just have tournaments anyway in LAN like it does now. show me another console fps that had the CAL and MLG support that halo 1 and 2 had. please.

and as far as i know, xbox's fans havnt been lied to as much as ps3's fans. padding ftw!

 

[Lazn_Work]

Precisely right, which is why I thought it a tad ridiculous that so many so-called techies aren't backing BD to succeed. We sure are a spiteful lot. So spiteful in fact, that we would cut off our nose to spite our face, which is the case in techies hoping for BD to fail.

I am painfully aware of the lack of demand for anything of true quality. I've been an SACD fan since the early days of the format (still have a Sony SCD-C555ES), and still routinely listen to SACDs. Almost every time I do so I'm reminded of how the general public much prefers convenience and quantity over quality, as is evidenced by the boom of portable MP3 players and the slow but sure demise of high-res audio. When something is "good enough", if it's cheaper than the alternative then why bother?

HD disc tech in general is a different story. HD TV set sales are sufficiently large to have penetrated a considerable portion of the market, making HD discs viable. More importantly the advantages of HD over SD are clearly visible, even on the cheapest HD sets. The same cannot be said for high-res audio, as one needs decent audio components and speakers to tell the difference. In a market where Bose is king, it's no wonder high-res audio is doomed to be a niche product. I'll just be glad if it stays afloat as a niche product instead of fading away.

I'm not saying that BD will win because it's superior tech. One just has to look back at Betamax vs. VHS to see how that worked out. In fact I'm not making any predictions at all. I'm just saying that as techies we should have a desire for BD to succeed over HD-DVD because it's better tech.

I disagree entirely. That is like saying we should hope for Windows to become the only operating system for every type of computer, even the ones in your car that control the ABS.

BlueRay may be a little more advanced technically, but it also supports crippling DRM formats that take away your ability to do what you want with content you purchase. I hardly call that better.

Besides, the quality you get out of either blueray or HD-DVD will matter more on the encoding done by the studio than the end specs of the player.. Just look at how to this point most HD-DVD movies look better than their blueray counterparts, even though this should not be the case technically. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/01/1556229

Just because Ducati's are technically superior to Honda's I still would prefer a Honda personally.. And I hope Blueray dies a horrible death and teaches the entertainment industry that they need to adjust their business model and not try to hang on to the old ways of doing things by forcing unwanted DRM down the throats of unwilling customers.

 

[MentatYP]

I disagree entirely. That is like saying we should hope for Windows to become the only operating system for every type of computer, even the ones in your car that control the ABS.

BlueRay may be a little more advanced technically, but it also supports crippling DRM formats that take away your ability to do what you want with content you purchase. I hardly call that better.

Besides, the quality you get out of either blueray or HD-DVD will matter more on the encoding done by the studio than the end specs of the player.. Just look at how to this point most HD-DVD movies look better than their blueray counterparts, even though this should not be the case technically. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/01/1556229

Just because Ducati's are technically superior to Honda's I still would prefer a Honda personally.. And I hope Blueray dies a horrible death and teaches the entertainment industry that they need to adjust their business model and not try to hang on to the old ways of doing things by forcing unwanted DRM down the throats of unwilling customers.

Got any links on some good articles about this? I wasn't aware of this. I'm skeptical that HD-DVD would be any easier to copy than BD--Hollywood was pretty fierce about copy protection measures before any HD disc standards were agreed upon--but will definitely keep an open mind while reading any material about this. I'm thinking this might be another case of ability vs. willingness to implement. HD-DVD players are supposed to have the ability to limit HD output to only HDMI, thereby leaving component video users out in the cold, but AFAIK this has not been implemented on any HD-DVD player as of yet.

I haven't been keeping up too much with the current state of HD discs as yet another format war has soured me on the whole idea, so most of my knowledge on this is old. Plus I still don't have an HD TV, so what's the point?

 

[Zorn]

The Xbox 360's graphics chip is much more advanced, it's based off ATI's R600, whereas the PS3's chip is basically a 7800GTX variant. There's an article somewhere that had a developer discussing this. It's really surprising to me that Sony wouldn't have gotten a G80 variant to put in the PS3.

 

[JVC]

i thought that the ps3 was better. i was always curious about the 360, i was going to buy one, before, now i am certain.

 

[phide]

From what it seems like, the PS3 currently has some issues. I think RSX is slightly underwhelming, and I don't believe many developers can properly grasp designing around a processor like Cell. There's also been many complaints, from Carmack, for instance, that the PS3 tool set is substantially more difficult to work with, while Microsoft's XNA has been praised repeatedly for its robustness and ease of use.

The X360 is still the current-gen console to buy as far as I'm concerned. Eventually, Sony will begin to deliver on its promises, but unless you need yourself a Blu-ray player, and if you just want a solid gaming machine, the 360 is the one to have. The past month's sales have reflected this.

ok, now you're just getting stupid, nowhere in there i said that 7800 is a gpu, perhaps you should brush up on your reading skillz,

I'm not sure if words can express how infinitely hilarious this statement is.

Thanks for the laugh, kiddo.

 

[Lazn_Work]

Got any links on some good articles about this? I wasn't aware of this. I'm skeptical that HD-DVD would be any easier to copy than BD--Hollywood was pretty fierce about copy protection measures before any HD disc standards were agreed upon--but will definitely keep an open mind while reading any material about this. I'm thinking this might be another case of ability vs. willingness to implement. HD-DVD players are supposed to have the ability to limit HD output to only HDMI, thereby leaving component video users out in the cold, but AFAIK this has not been implemented on any HD-DVD player as of yet.

I haven't been keeping up too much with the current state of HD discs as yet another format war has soured me on the whole idea, so most of my knowledge on this is old. Plus I still don't have an HD TV, so what's the point?

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=884

Basically, right now they both use AACS.. however with BlueRay, they can update the security remotely... not something I am a fan of. (let's include a program on the disk that will flash the firmware of every device out there to allow it to decode my one disk.. who cares if it bricks 50% of the devices out there.. see how responsible Sony was with their rootkits on the CD's they sold.. I don't expect much better from a new more encrypted format controlled by big business)

As for ease of copying.. both are fairly well protected ATM.

 

[Particleman]

Personally, Sony including Blu-ray with the PS3 is a non-factor for me. It is a format that may or may not survive, and the movie selection is very limited. Until there is a clear winner I am not going to jump on either the HD-DVD or Blu-ray bandwagons.

When I compare the 360 and PS3 I am looking at it as a game console. Sony may have the edge in terms of CPU power but it is more difficult to program for which kind of negates that advantage. In terms of GPU Microsoft has the advantage with the more advanced chip designed specifically for the console. As we have seen with gaming on the PC, GPU is wwwwwaaaaayyyyy more important that CPU.

And those saying that the RSX isn't a 7800GTX are correct, it is much worse than a 7800GTX because of its 128-bit memory bus.

 

[phide]

I think the point I was trying to make about RSX not being a 7800 GTX is more of a semantic one. The 7800 GTX is a specific add-in card, while the GPU that resides on that card is named G70 (though NVIDIA actually prints the name of the card on the chip). For the 8800s, NVIDIA has returned to printing "G80" on the chip (or, more precisely, the IHS), and leaving out any marketing monikers.

It gets a little dodgy, as some might refer to the cards as G70 or G80 (gander at all the threads here with "G80" in their title), but from what I know, this is technically incorrect.

Silly semantics debates are kind of annoying, but those who take a disrespectful "know-it-all" approach to debating should be schooled on these trivial things as well as on the more glaring errors in their logic.

 

[KENNYB]

Personally, Sony including Blu-ray with the PS3 is a non-factor for me. It is a format that may or may not survive, and the movie selection is very limited. Until there is a clear winner I am not going to jump on either the HD-DVD or Blu-ray bandwagons.

When I compare the 360 and PS3 I am looking at it as a game console. Sony may have the edge in terms of CPU power but it is more difficult to program for which kind of negates that advantage. In terms of GPU Microsoft has the advantage with the more advanced chip designed specifically for the console. As we have seen with gaming on the PC, GPU is wwwwwaaaaayyyyy more important that CPU.

And those saying that the RSX isn't a 7800GTX are correct, it is much worse than a 7800GTX because of its 128-bit memory bus.

Talk about a kick in the nuts...lol. The only reasons i would want a PS3 is to play MSG4. I'm sure ill want to play the next FF also, but MSG4 is the game saving Sony's ass.

So far i'm happy with the X-Crate 360. If only MS would allow Dvix out of the box.

 

[Arcygenical]

if they made a Zone of the Enders 3, I'd buy the PS3 .

 

[w1retap]

So far i'm happy with the X-Crate 360. If only MS would allow Dvix out of the box.

pfft, screw divx, the 360 allows you to play HD-video formats like .ts, wmvhd, and x264. That's all you need. It plays smooth as butter too. You have to stream it to your 360 networked with your PC. Use HDTVPUMP and TVersity. =)

 

[bobrownik]

And those saying that the RSX isn't a 7800GTX are correct, it is much worse than a 7800GTX because of its 128-bit memory bus.

yup rsx blows,

the only way i would buy a ps3 is if it came with a free blowjob and a $600 mail in rebate

 

[KENNYB]

pfft, screw divx, the 360 allows you to play HD-video formats like .ts, wmvhd, and x264. That's all you need. It plays smooth as butter too. You have to stream it to your 360 networked with your PC. Use HDTVPUMP and TVersity. =)

Nothing wrong with divx and avi. Who are you to say wmvhd and H.264 is all we need? You sound like you work for Microsoft. The 360 shouldn't need extra software to play divx files. It should work out of the box just like an Oppo.

 

[Arcygenical]

Nothing wrong with divx and avi. Who are you to say wmvhd and H.264 is all we need? You sound like you work for Microsoft. The 360 shouldn't need extra software to play divx files. It should work out of the box just like an Oppo.

Yeah... 98% of my movie files are in DIVx or AVI...

 

[Dynafrom]

How is it even possible to think the xenos is based off the R600, when the R600 uses a 512(?) bit memory interface, more unified shaders then the xenos, and when current day architecture wasn't even thought of! Rediculous to say the xenos was "based" off a R600 when in almost no way (except unified shader and steam-out) does it resemble the "rumored" specs of the r600. At best, it compares with the X1800.

 

[blacken]

Bah. 600$ now, compared to PC hardware, it will be worth 200$ next year. Not worth it. PC's will out scale the PS3 and 360 in 1/2 a year. Can't upgrade it's hardware, might as well buy a 250 dollar Wii and have some fun. I think eventualy consoles will end to exhist. Not many peaple like to be stuck with graphics from the year 2006 if it's 2011 and PC hardware is churning out photo realistic games. DX10 is comming also and who knows if the 3 consoles could handle DX10 based games. Already we've heard about the PS3 dropping frame rates in current games. Sure the games aren't yet taking advantage of the 6 out of 7 free processers, but each of them can be compared to a regular Pentium as I've heard in certain reviews. How far are 7 Pent's gonna go if our current core 2 duo's devour a single Pentium's processing power buy more than 20 times?
At first I was slobbering over the PS3, now I'm glad I retracted my tongue Wii has claimed over 3 times more web searching this month too. Looks like most people have the same idea. I wouldn't mind having a PS3... sure if I had tons of dough, but the poor anti-alaising as seen at gamespot realy urks me. Either you can pay 600 bucks for a static system or 600 bucks for something you can continuously upgrade. Out of the three, the Wii looks good and costs little though IMO the 360 @ 300 bucks goes FTW, 360 all the way.

 

[Moofasa~]

How is it even possible to think the xenos is based off the R600, when the R600 uses a 512(?) bit memory interface, more unified shaders then the xenos, and when current day architecture wasn't even thought of! Rediculous to say the xenos was "based" off a R600 when in almost no way (except unified shader and steam-out) does it resemble the "rumored" specs of the r600. At best, it compares with the X1800.

I think you are misunderstanding people. The R600 is based off the C1, not the other way around. Therefore, while R600 is much more powerful, they should be at least similar in structure. The C1 is basically a DX10 part without geometry shaders. So while it may not be as "powerful" as the RSX, it definitely should be more efficient.

 

[Dynafrom]

I think you are misunderstanding people. The R600 is based off the C1, not the other way around. Therefore, while R600 is much more powerful, they should be at least similar in structure. The C1 is basically a DX10 part without geometry shaders. So while it may not be as "powerful" as the RSX, it definitely should be more efficient.

yes but, how could it be based of the C1 when current day architecture hasn't even been thought of 1 1/2 years ago.

 

[Moofasa~]

yes but, how could it be based of the C1 when current day architecture hasn't even been thought of 1 1/2 years ago.

Just like the X8x0 series was based off of the 9x00 series. The talk of Unified Shaders has been thought of long before 1.5 years ago...

 

[Nobi125]

How is it even possible to think the xenos is based off the R600, when the R600 uses a 512(?) bit memory interface, more unified shaders then the xenos, and when current day architecture wasn't even thought of! Rediculous to say the xenos was "based" off a R600 when in almost no way (except unified shader and steam-out) does it resemble the "rumored" specs of the r600. At best, it compares with the X1800.

I'd say it has more in common with the X1900XT.

 

[Moofasa~]

I'd say it has more in common with the X1900XT.

Which would be inaccurate. C1 and R600 have a unified shader architecture (and both support VTF; remember that whole SM3.0 done right thing?); the R580 does not. I don't see why it's so hard to understand the R600 was based off the C1; it's practically common knowledge at this point...

 

[skadebo]

Xenos being based on the r600 is like a movie based on actual events bsh!ts.

 

[Nobi125]

Which would be inaccurate. C1 and R600 have a unified shader architecture (and both support VTF; remember that whole SM3.0 done right thing?); the R580 does not. I don't see why it's so hard to understand the R600 was based off the C1; it's practically common knowledge at this point...

He said it was comparable to an X1800, all I said was that it was more comparable to an X1900.

You're making an entirely different point.

 

[Dudeyourlame]

delete

 

[BronxBartoni]

I will quote from my other board

But the 360 has Gears Of War

And its true. The only thing the PS3 has that is close to a killer app is Resistance, and we can all see how original that game is.