NPD Sales Results for November 2009

[DragonMasterAlex]

Wrong. I know the bandwidth of RSX is only 128 bit, like Xenos, I've acknowledged that all along. That's the entirety of your poor argument.

The fact RSX has the same pixel/vertex shader array as the high end chip, at a higher clock speed, with twice as much cache to prevent stalls, is more important for current gen games, than its internal bandwidth, in a closed box at 720p resolution.

You have yet to acknowledge that. Why do you call it a 7600, if it's got more shader power than a 7800 ?

And regarding which system is more powerful, many of RSX's shortcomings are compensated for by Cell. Have you heard about the PS3 version of Saboteur ?
The developers implemented a new AA technique. It's running on a single SPU, and has IQ competing with modern PC GPUs.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=55634&page=2
The X360 game has no AA. Tiling issues ?

No, it's NOT wrong, you twit. Yes, RSX has the same pixel shader count as the 7800. DUH. The reason it runs at a higher clock speedd, as well as the reason it has more cache, is to compensate for the lack of bus bandwidth. You seem to think that by adding the term "closed box" you remove the importance of bus bandwidth-YOU DON'T and you're wrong to think so.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Certainly, some developers have done some very cool things with PS3 games. But if your claims about it being oh-so-powerful by comparison were remotely true, why is it that 90% of the cross platform games released on 360 and PS3 have been better looking, with better colors, AA, framerates and occasionally even resolutions on 360? At that, in most cases the differences are *minor*, regardless of which system showed the "better looking" version, each was so similar as to be indistinguishable under any circumstances besides side-by-side comparison of stills.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PS3 and 360 are EQUALS. Neither one holds a decisive advantage over the other. Your FANBOY ravings do not change this fact, and 3+ years worth of VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL GAMES prove that fact.

As for the relative *importance* of that fact, perhaps you should be reminded that the much-less-powerful Wii has *obliterated* both systems in sales in every country around the world. Now, how important is the relative graphical prowess of 360 and PS3?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Only round 2? You haven't been paying attention.

The only fanboy here is Stereophile, who for YEARS now has continued to insist that his platform of choice is somehow magically superior to the other simply because he says so, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary

360 and PS3 are equals. Claiming a unilateral power win for either system denotes nothing but ignorance.

 

[Psychotext]

As much as Sterophile is a fanboy, it's pretty clear that he's not the only one here.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

As much as Sterophile is a fanboy, it's pretty clear that he's not the only one here.

LOL if you say so . As an owner of all three consoles, and someone who refuses to pretend that any one of the two HD systems holds a unilateral advantage over the other, and who understands clearly that the Wii isn't even close to on par with the HD consoles in terms of horsepower, I think that effectively eliminates my candidacy from any form of fanboyism .

What I *am*, however, is a stickler for facts--and the facts are that no matter how much Stereophile wishes it were so, neither HD console trumps the other as a complete system. Why is that so terribly difficult to grasp now that we have three full years worth of evidence to back it up?

 

[KrAzY-KaMeL]

I personally think the main reason why multi platform games tend to look slightly worse on the PS3 is mainly due to the developers and resources they invest or lack there of.

A lot of the techniques they've used to maintain framerate/image quality really seem like big shortcuts while first party titles like Uncharted/Killzone look gorgeous.

 

[Stereophile]

The reason it runs at a higher clock speedd, is to compensate for the lack of bus bandwidth.

It's got a higher clock speed because it's on an .09 process. Unofficially it's 500mhz. I believe the 7800s only were around 400mhz. If you'll remember the 7800GTX 512 ran at a higher speed on the old process. It was a highly binned card that went out of production almost immediately.

They didn't start from a 7600 and and say, because of the internal bus, we'll give it more shader arrays. Nvidia took the 7800 technology, adapted and modified its capabilities for a console, then gave it to Sony to fab on the 7900's process. Calling the RSX a 7600 is harshly downplaying its capabilities and you should know it.

The fact you can't defend your trolling without losing your temper speaks volumes about the quality of your argument Mr. systems engineer.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I personally think the main reason why multi platform games tend to look slightly worse on the PS3 is mainly due to the developers and resources they invest or lack there of.

A lot of the techniques they've used to maintain framerate/image quality really seem like big shortcuts while first party titles like Uncharted/Killzone look gorgeous.

Amen to that.

I have all 3 systems as well and I find myself using them in the following order

1. Wii instant gratification
2. Xbox 360
3. PS3 Blue Ray and ratchet and clank (need I say more)

and KZ2 looks and plays freaking awesome but Lost Planet 2 is the best game i have seen so far

 

[Tigerblade]

The constant bickering over the PS3 and 360 got really old a long time ago, because when you look at the big picture, neither of their sales have been impressive with the both of them being destroyed by the Wii in all areas: hardware, software, and profits.

They're basically battling over who's going to be a distant second. Hell, a distant fourth if you count the handhelds.

Agree on all points bar that, it's a well known fact the Wii attachment rate is embarassingly low.......obviously rampant piracy on the system is doing it no favours there but do ppl see that as a selling point? A whole other can o' worms there.....

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

It's got a higher clock speed because it's on an .09 process. Unofficially it's 500mhz. I believe the 7800s only were around 400mhz. If you'll remember the 7800GTX 512 ran at a higher speed on the old process. It was a highly binned card that went out of production almost immediately.

They didn't start from a 7600 and and say, because of the internal bus, we'll give it more shader arrays. Nvidia took the 7800 technology, adapted and modified its capabilities for a console, then gave it to Sony to fab on the 7900's process. Calling the RSX a 7600 is harshly downplaying its capabilities and you should know it.

The fact you can't defend your trolling without losing your temper speaks volumes about the quality of your argument Mr. systems engineer.

Sorry, the only troll her is, as usual, yourself. You're unable to even quote correct figures when I've given you direct links to specs. The 7800 runs at 430Mhz, the 7600 runs at 560Mhz, RSX runs at 550Mhz. The 7800 has nearly *double* the bandwidth of the 7600 and of RSX. If you'd bothered looking at the specifications you'd notice that the 7600 and RSX have *identical* bus bandwidth, run within 10Mhz of each other, are built on the same process, etc.

Further, your continued insistence on misrepresenting what I've said only further demonstrates your trollism. I did not say that RSX *is* a 7600 at any point. I said that RSX shares more in common with a 7600 than a 7800, and that the part sits somewhere in between the two. Of course, because you're a fanboy you don't bother to actually read anything but what you want to read, so that's to be expected.

Tested in the identical environment, the 7800 would significantly outperform RSX, and the 7900 would simply demolish it. RSX, just like the Xenos GPU in 360, is a mid range part which yields better performance than you could get from the same part in a PC for the simple reason that it doesn't have to deal with the overhead of a bulky operating system and all the nonrelated processes that run while playing a game.

Yet again, the point you miss is very simple and has been demonstrated by three YEARS worth of games released so far: 360 and PS3 are equals when taken as an overall system. Each has some strengths and weaknesses versus the other, but *neither* has a unilateral advantage.

Why it is that you're incapable of accepting this simple, obvious, *demonstrated* fact is beyond me.

 

[Rash]

just wondering, why would an operating system affect the performance of a GPU? Dont flame me as i know nothing about how components are taxed in depth. Id have thought an operating system would tax a CPU thus affecting gaming performance, but by how much? My small knowlege of Computers would have thought just a few fps. Im just wondering this as the PS3/360 blows my core 2 duo laptop with an overclocked 256meg 8600gt (which is on par with desktop 8600gt) completely out of the water in pretty much any game (games like, L4D, Call of duty 4, Call of Juarez bound in blood, Lost Planet and especially street fighter 4) and not by just a couple of fps.

Sorry to be going off topic, just puzzled by sterophile and dragonmasteralex hot debate!!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

just wondering, why would an operating system affect the performance of a GPU? Dont flame me as i know nothing about how components are taxed in depth. Id have thought an operating system would tax a CPU thus affecting gaming performance, but by how much? My small knowlege of Computers would have thought just a few fps. Im just wondering this as the PS3/360 blows my core 2 duo laptop with an overclocked 256meg 8600gt (which is on par with desktop 8600gt) completely out of the water in pretty much any game (games like, L4D, Call of duty 4, Call of Juarez bound in blood, Lost Planet and especially street fighter 4) and not by just a couple of fps.

Sorry to be going off topic, just puzzled by sterophile and dragonmasteralex hot debate!!

The reason is that on a PC, an operating system runs in the background at all times; ith as hundreds of processes running, taking up various amounts of memory, doing all sorts of stuff that utilizes the PC's hardware at the same time as you're trying to run the game.

On a console, when you're running the game, the hardware is dedicated to that game. The OS-which is generally very minimal anyway-all but completely shuts down, allowing the game full or nearly full access to everything the hardware is capable of doing. So as a result, a console can do more with less hardware than a PC can.

 

[Rash]

The reason is that on a PC, an operating system runs in the background at all times; ith as hundreds of processes running, taking up various amounts of memory, doing all sorts of stuff that utilizes the PC's hardware at the same time as you're trying to run the game.

On a console, when you're running the game, the hardware is dedicated to that game. The OS-which is generally very minimal anyway-all but completely shuts down, allowing the game full or nearly full access to everything the hardware is capable of doing. So as a result, a console can do more with less hardware than a PC can.

So if i stripped the absolute shit out of my operating system wether it be xp or win7 id get a massive boost as in 30+fps increase in performance or comparable performance to a ps3/360?
if thats the case im suprised no one releases a basic decent operating system geared towards game performance but does basic office programs, media and a decent internet browser which is basically what home users want. Maybe thats where Google are heading.

I say this as im about to retire my Vaio laptop in my sig and just use it as a hyperspin machine and if i have to completely strip winxp to make sf4 etc run as good as the ps3 or left for dead 1&2 on the 360 then ill research into how to strip it down for gaming purposes only!!

 

[Psychotext]

There's a very big difference between consoles and PCs when it comes to handling operating systems... but yes, if you stripped the hell out of your OS you could see a significant FPS increase. Gamers have been doing it for years (look at things like XPLite and go even more hardcore than that).

You still need the underlying performance to start with though obviously. You're not going to turn a sloth into a cheetah.

 

[Rash]

There's a very big difference between consoles and PCs when it comes to handling operating systems... but yes, if you stripped the hell out of your OS you could see a significant FPS increase. Gamers have been doing it for years (look at things like XPLite and go even more hardcore than that).

You still need the underlying performance to start with though obviously. You're not going to turn a sloth into a cheetah.

Cool cheers ill check it out, id be chuffed if i could turn the vaio into a Hyperspin machine with near PS3/360 performance on the PC Section of my Arcade Cab!!

 

[theNoid]

raw xbot fan rage much ?

Not at all, I rarely play my 360 these days. Without dragging this out any further, we can just agreed to disagree. You made some pretty bold statements about Microsoft slipping in the graphics department, when there is no proof of this what so ever. And lets not forget we're in a sales thread, and you changed the subject by saying, "but but but but this consoles games look better!"

You dont get to derail threads with make believe data then stand broad shoulder and proud when challenging responses. I mean unless you want me to come into a GoW3 thread in a few months and remind everyone that the PS3 is still in third place and can't sell hardware for shit?

Get my point?

 

[Ocellaris]

So if i stripped the absolute shit out of my operating system wether it be xp or win7 id get a massive boost as in 30+fps increase in performance or comparable performance to a ps3/360?
if thats the case im suprised no one releases a basic decent operating system geared towards game performance but does basic office programs, media and a decent internet browser which is basically what home users want. Maybe thats where Google are heading.

I say this as im about to retire my Vaio laptop in my sig and just use it as a hyperspin machine and if i have to completely strip winxp to make sf4 etc run as good as the ps3 or left for dead 1&2 on the 360 then ill research into how to strip it down for gaming purposes only!!

No it does not work like that. Even if you make a stripped down Windows PC, its not going to give you a big performance boost. What really kills the performance of PC games is compatibility.

Console games can be designed, compiled, and optimized for one target hardware platform. That allows developers / designers to fully craft an experience that runs and plays well on that one platform. When you are coding specifically for one platform, you can get a lot more out of it. Watch Uncharted 2 in motion, its beautiful, and its the result of years of development from Naughty Dog to learn on the tips and tricks to crafting a good looking game on the PS3 platform.

PC games need to run on multiple versions of Windows, different OS Service Pack levels, GPUs from different vendors, differing amount of RAM, any number of CPU cores and so on. You need to try to make sure the game can run on Average Joe's $500 laptop and also try to make it look nice on high end rigs. In the end, you need to make a ton of design compromises. All of these compromises murder performance. PCs have a massive edge in raw computation power though. So even though the games are really not efficient, they end up running prettty good on new hardware.

 

[Deleted member 143938]

Cool cheers ill check it out, id be chuffed if i could turn the vaio into a Hyperspin machine with near PS3/360 performance on the PC Section of my Arcade Cab!!

I wouldn't actually suggest trying that. Contrary to what was said, you would not see a massive boost in performance. Nothing more than possibly a couple (literally a couple) frames in a game like Crysis.

If you open up process explorer you'll see that the OS barely uses the CPU, maybe maxes out at like %5 when browsing the net or something. The majority of resources taken by an OS is simply memory, and unless you're running a system with low memory (~<3gb with Vista, maybe Win 7), you should have plenty left for a game to not make a difference.

In other words, don't bother. Or add more memory if you're low

 

[Rash]

I wouldn't actually suggest trying that. Contrary to what was said, you would not see a massive boost in performance. Nothing more than possibly a couple (literally a couple) frames in a game like Crysis.

If you open up process explorer you'll see that the OS barely uses the CPU, maybe maxes out at like %5 when browsing the net or something. The majority of resources taken by an OS is simply memory, and unless you're running a system with low memory (~<3gb with Vista, maybe Win 7), you should have plenty left for a game to not make a difference.

In other words, don't bother. Or add more memory if you're low

I dont honestly expect much performance increase at all in crysis after anything, its not a game id be seeking increased fps, L4d or sf4 im wanting extra performance in.

If that is the case and win 7 only uses 5% cpu running in idle before i start a game then why does my 8600gt in my vaio and other peoples desktop pcs performance perform at a considerable amount of fps less than a ps3/360 gpu ie 30-50% less fps at the same detail in a lot of cases? Surely that 5% resource usage makes that much difference?

The excuse for pc graphics underperformance due to design compromises for different pcs/scalability argument is a pretty weak argument imo also especially with the big named developers like IW/Epic/valve etc

 

[Psychotext]

I wouldn't actually suggest trying that. Contrary to what was said, you would not see a massive boost in performance. Nothing more than possibly a couple (literally a couple) frames in a game like Crysis.

I've seen upwards of 15% increase in frame rate on a normal machine vs a heavily tweaked one. That might not be "massive", but it's framerate for free. Admittedly, that was in the past, and it used to be far more important than it is now. Modern PCs easily handle the background requirements of the OS.

As for what you've said Rash... surely you must understand that tuning against a single hardware / software platform is significantly easier (and more productive) than trying to tune for the many thousands of different configurations of PCs out there. If I know there's a x Ghz processor of a particular type then I can code in a very specific way to target its strengths and weaknesses. If I know there's y amount of memory available to me, I can optimise my read strategy and utilise the absolute maximum available to me at any one time. This goes right the way through a console's hardware because I know every single aspect of it in advance, and what's available to me.

You can't begin to imagine what one of these top end devs could create if they were told they only had to make their game work on a Core i7 with 8gb of RAM and a 5870... you'd also be amazed at what they could get out of something like your laptop. But again, this is because they spend years learning new tricks to get the most out of the very specific hardware they have available to them.

 

[Deleted member 143938]

I dont honestly expect much performance increase at all in crysis after anything, its not a game id be seeking increased fps, L4d or sf4 im wanting extra performance in.

If that is the case and win 7 only uses 5% cpu running in idle before i start a game then why does my 8600gt in my vaio and other peoples desktop pcs performance perform at a considerable amount of fps less than a ps3/360 gpu ie 30-50% less fps at the same detail in a lot of cases? Surely that 5% resource usage makes that much difference?

The excuse for pc graphics underperformance due to design compromises for different pcs/scalability argument is a pretty weak argument imo also especially with the big named developers like IW/Epic/valve etc

Because console graphics are much more watered down than their PC counterparts, even at low settings. The games are also optimized for the console in most cases. Something that can't be done with PCs (consoles have only one GPU/CPU/Memory. Compared to the millions of different parts PCs have)

 

[Stimz]

MW2 sales wasn't very surprising. The Wii sales are pretty crazy though. It seems like everyone I know has a Wii or is completely uninterested in getting one. I wonder when those sales will hit a wall...

 

[Psychotext]

MW2 sales wasn't very surprising. The Wii sales are pretty crazy though. It seems like everyone I know has a Wii or is completely uninterested in getting one. I wonder when those sales will hit a wall...

Well... they already sort of did. Console is down 30% vs last year, and still crushing the competition.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

No it does not work like that. Even if you make a stripped down Windows PC, its not going to give you a big performance boost. What really kills the performance of PC games is compatibility.

Console games can be designed, compiled, and optimized for one target hardware platform. That allows developers / designers to fully craft an experience that runs and plays well on that one platform. When you are coding specifically for one platform, you can get a lot more out of it. Watch Uncharted 2 in motion, its beautiful, and its the result of years of development from Naughty Dog to learn on the tips and tricks to crafting a good looking game on the PS3 platform.

PC games need to run on multiple versions of Windows, different OS Service Pack levels, GPUs from different vendors, differing amount of RAM, any number of CPU cores and so on. You need to try to make sure the game can run on Average Joe's $500 laptop and also try to make it look nice on high end rigs. In the end, you need to make a ton of design compromises. All of these compromises murder performance. PCs have a massive edge in raw computation power though. So even though the games are really not efficient, they end up running prettty good on new hardware.

Actually, you're mistaken. By stripping down the *Operating System* so that only the barest minimum of functions are running, you CAN see a significant increase in performance. As Psychotext stated, PC gamers-myself included-have been doing this for years. By using tools such as nLite, it's possible to build a *highly* optimized and streamlined build of XP that installs in minutes, has a footprint of only a few hundred MB and a memory footprint under 100MB, a *sliver* of what a stock XP install has. The performance on such a system is significantly better than with a stock OS running all the background crap.

It's fair to say that doing this isn't equivelant to, say, buying the latest $500 GPU, but it absolutely makes a very large, very measurable performance difference when running a gutted OS that's optimized for nothing but games.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I've seen upwards of 15% increase in frame rate on a normal machine vs a heavily tweaked one. That might not be "massive", but it's framerate for free. Admittedly, that was in the past, and it used to be far more important than it is now. Modern PCs easily handle the background requirements of the OS.

As for what you've said Rash... surely you must understand that tuning against a single hardware / software platform is significantly easier (and more productive) than trying to tune for the many thousands of different configurations of PCs out there. If I know there's a x Ghz processor of a particular type then I can code in a very specific way to target its strengths and weaknesses. If I know there's y amount of memory available to me, I can optimise my read strategy and utilise the absolute maximum available to me at any one time. This goes right the way through a console's hardware because I know every single aspect of it in advance, and what's available to me.

You can't begin to imagine what one of these top end devs could create if they were told they only had to make their game work on a Core i7 with 8gb of RAM and a 5870... you'd also be amazed at what they could get out of something like your laptop. But again, this is because they spend years learning new tricks to get the most out of the very specific hardware they have available to them.

Well and accurately said

 

[Rash]

ok cool thats good info cheers.
So......disregarding tech specs what are the ps3 and 360 graphics equivalent to pc wise using a normal installed OS just incase i cant get my vaio up to ps3/360 standard and have to build a cheap arcade cab rig?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

ok cool thats good info cheers.
So......disregarding tech specs what are the ps3 and 360 graphics equivalent to pc wise using a normal installed OS just incase i cant get my vaio up to ps3/360 standard and have to build a cheap arcade cab rig?

It's difficult to say conclusively because, as Psychotext pointed out, console developers can take years to master the nuances of very specific hardware. That said, you can essentially think of both systems in the category of Geforce 7ish hardware.

 

[Rash]

ok so id be safe getting a 7800gtx for comparable performance, thats what i needed to know! Ive found a used one for £20 if my lappy doesnt cut it!!!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

ok so id be safe getting a 7800gtx for comparable performance, thats what i needed to know! Ive found a used one for £20 if my lappy doesnt cut it!!!

That's not too terrible, but you might be able to get something in the Geforce 8 series for that price, which would net you DirectX 10 quality effects, which the Geforce 7 class hardware can't do

 

[Ocellaris]

ok so id be safe getting a 7800gtx for comparable performance, thats what i needed to know! Ive found a used one for £20 if my lappy doesnt cut it!!!

7800GTX is crap for current games.

 

[Rash]

7800GTX is crap for current games.

i only want the games to look as good as the ps3/360 for now so it should be sufficient?

 

[Casper312]

I'd rather sound like a total dick who presents FACTS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS than a drooling fanboy who can't find anything more concrete than *forum posts*.

I will rather be the guy laughing on the other side of the monitor then one bickering and acting like a 12 year old.

If hes wrong, a simple correction without caps will do, He still doesn't get it? Then let him be.

As for the actual thread, Pretty good numbers. I am happy PS3 was not that far behind. Got a PS3 recently and love it. My friend got a 360 for Forza 3 and We got a rrod after 4 hours of playing. Even with that I might still get it, I enjoyed Forza 3.

 

[snaggletooth]

Forza 3 is a reason to own an Xbox360. One of many.

 

[Casper312]

Just one for me. No other exclusives really appeal to me and I am a big fps junkie. Still might get a cheap arcade console to play forza fully. Hopefully some good exclusives come for 360 that I would love to have.

 

[Psychotext]

That's always the case until you actually get a machine. Before I got my 360 there were literally only one or two games I wanted to play... and now I own at least 60 (including XBLA). Similar story with my PS3.

Demos and downloadable games are the devil... and the HD twins have them in spades.

 

[Ocellaris]

i only want the games to look as good as the ps3/360 for now so it should be sufficient?

No its not going to end up being sufficent. PS3 and 360 may have GeForce 7x00 era hardware, however they get more out of it. Shoot for something like a Nvidia 250 or a ATI 4850. What is your price range? We can help you find a card...

 

[Stereophile]

He still doesn't get it? Then let him be.

He doesn't get it. He labeled the RSX a 7600, rather than a stripped down 7800, when established and neutral people with credentials at least as good as an engineering BS ? outside of any area of authority on the topic, all agree, it's more like a 7800, and for 720p in a closed box, with a CPU as powerful as Cell, more capable than a 7800GTX. All he's looking at is bandwidth and ignoring all the other positives above a 7600 and 7800 like.
Does it make any sense a console company vying for graphics supremacy would specifiy or be sold on contract a "less expensive, thus less profitable part" rather than a variant of the "top of the curret line" GPU ?

A 7600 like GPU in a $600 retail console sold at a loss ? Really ?
Unsubtle trolling

Multiplatform games don't reflect anything more than the early and current marketshare/mindshare paradigm. Very few 3rd party developers are utilizing all of the PS3's potential.

It's not in their interest to lead on PS3 because it sells less software and is more costly to develop for in the beginning, due to the steep learning curve. ND made Uncharted 2 for cheap. It was mostly content creation and tweaks to the Uncharted engine. They're first party. But the latest edge tools are helping 3rd party come up to speed. Running a custom AA algorhythm ~ X16 AA in effect, on a single SPU is impressive.

This generation is barely half done. PS3 has the best console graphics now. I have no doubt the PS3 games in 2-3 years will look semi-next generation, and as big an improvement as we've seen from launch to now. Similiar to how the trailing PS2 games did such amazing things with "old hw". And it had roughly half the total effective game rendering power of Xbox. Now PS/Xxxx are more equally matched, and as Carmack said, the PS3 has more peak power. The longer the generation lasts, the wider the gap grows. It's a long term strategy.

Sales mean nothing in the context of which console is more powerful. The most powerful system frequently is not the market leader. Although from a business standpoint, the Wii was a magnficent hit, I don't like the way Nintendo 'leads' the industry. They're back to their NES ways, except they don't compete for the 'enthusist gamer'. So the only truly AAA games are few and far between.

 

[Psychotext]

Jesus christ. Does it matter? What the hell is wrong with you people? Can't one of you just be the bigger person and let it go?

 

[Deleted member 143938]

 

[Casper312]

He doesn't get it. He labeled the RSX a 7600, rather than a stripped down 7800, when established and neutral people with credentials at least as good as an engineering BS ? outside of any area of authority on the topic, all agree, it's more like a 7800, and for 720p in a closed box, with a CPU as powerful as Cell, more capable than a 7800GTX. All he's looking at is bandwidth and ignoring all the other positives above a 7600 and 7800 like.
Does it make any sense a console company vying for graphics supremacy would specifiy or be sold on contract a "less expensive, thus less profitable part" rather than a variant of the "top of the curret line" GPU ?

A 7600 like GPU in a $600 retail console sold at a loss ? Really ?
Unsubtle trolling

Multiplatform games don't reflect anything more than the early and current marketshare/mindshare paradigm. Very few 3rd party developers are utilizing all of the PS3's potential.

It's not in their interest to lead on PS3 because it sells less software and is more costly to develop for in the beginning, due to the steep learning curve. ND made Uncharted 2 for cheap. It was mostly content creation and tweaks to the Uncharted engine. They're first party. But the latest edge tools are helping 3rd party come up to speed. Running a custom AA algorhythm ~ X16 AA in effect, on a single SPU is impressive.

This generation is barely half done. PS3 has the best console graphics now. I have no doubt the PS3 games in 2-3 years will look semi-next generation, and as big an improvement as we've seen from launch to now. Similiar to how the trailing PS2 games did such amazing things with "old hw". And it had roughly half the total effective game rendering power of Xbox. Now PS/Xxxx are more equally matched, and as Carmack said, the PS3 has more peak power. The longer the generation lasts, the wider the gap grows. It's a long term strategy.

Sales mean nothing in the context of which console is more powerful. The most powerful system frequently is not the market leader. Although from a business standpoint, the Wii was a magnficent hit, I don't like the way Nintendo 'leads' the industry. They're back to their NES ways, except they don't compete for the 'enthusist gamer'. So the only truly AAA games are few and far between.

All I read was ''He doesn't get it'' and decided to move on. See its that simple. If hes clearly blinded by his own opinions, Let him be nothing is gonna convince him otherwise. Unless you are that bored and just want to argue over non-sense then don't mind me continue. I enjoy good reads here then going to Nickelodeons forums.

 

[Epiik]

I would say PS3 is going to take the lead in 2010 and never look back.

Finally some of the bigger titles are starting to be released and we'll see once and for all of Sony was being realistic about their claim that the 360 wouldn't be able to keep up.