Official PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. N. Revolution

m8 i hv the specs for the ps3 and the top sepc super pc right infort of me the ps3 is just under it

 

Funny, I'm looking at the list as of June 2005.
1st IBM Blue Gene L 183.5 TFLOPS
2nd IBM Blue Gene W 114.6 TFLOPS
3rd SGI Altix 60.9 TFLOPS
4th Earth-Simulartor 40.9 TFLOPS
5th MareNostrum 42.1 TFLOPS

These are the theoretical maximums for each system. The 2 TFLOPS Sony 'claims' is not even close to these. Not only that, but these are Double Percision (64bit) FLOPS as opposed to Sony's Single Percision (32 bit) calculations. Tell me how many DPFLOPS the PS3 is capable of... Take a guess?

 

A recent article in the New York Times has revealed that Apple at one point considered Sony's Cell processor as another alternative to the PowerPC. Apple's CEO Steve Jobs told Sony's Ken Kutaragi he was disappointed with the design.

A Sony executive told the New York Times that Apple's Steve Jobs met in California with Nobuyuki Idei and Ken Kutaragi, the CEOs of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Mr. Kutaragi tried to interest Mr. Jobs in adopting the Cell chip, which is being developed by I.B.M. for use in the coming PlayStation 3, in exchange for access to certain Sony technologies. Mr. Jobs rejected the idea, telling Mr. Kutaragi that he was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC. - New York Times

Stay tuned to XboxCore for the latest in breaking next-gen gaming coverage

got this at
http://www.xboxcore.com/gaming_news/611.html?view=gamingnews&action=view&id=611&vo=7

 

Yeah but if Apple are so smart, how come they've been stuck with PowerPC cores for so long?

 

Not @ Sammorris, but this thread is rapidly declining, wyvengance you speak many truths. ads13 could learn a lot from you. As long as it included typing etiquette!


LMAO!!


Pulsar

 

Truthfully, I'm just tired of these people jumping on with "PS3 has 2x the CPU" or "360 has 3x General CPU"...

At this point, I just figure that I will call out each one to prove these claims (both sides). I'm all for informative discussion and reasoned debate (personally, I think you can learn alot by opposing points of view) but these ridiculous statements (which come from both sides) are starting to get on my nerves now.

 

I agree, it is like schoolboys fighting over who has the best toy! But they keep coming back, don't they?

AARRGH


Pulsar

 

I got TT Superbikes for my PS2, to say I am impressed would be an understatement. As much for the whole 37.73 mile circuit itself, but every house, road signs & markings, telephone boxes, manhole covers/grates, trees. The detail these guys went to is incredible. It runs very smoothly too!

I just hope that they do a PC version.



Very quickly!


Pulsar


PS, nice new sig Neph. Not seen you about much. You OK?

 

Hey some of the fanboy comments i have heard on this forum is amazing. I personally am gonna buy both and i think its perfect timiing. Get 360 in November and then save some money and buy the PS3 next year. At the end of the day its the consumer (us) that will benefit from these two systems. I will get to play good games hopefully! so why should i care which one is better. What i know for a fact is that both of the systems are better than the xbox and ps2 and that in my case warrant my money to go out and buy them. Now while saying that I am pissed of at the idea (this is just speculation) of buy a launch xbox 360 and then 6 months down the line having to buy another for the simple reason of HD-DVD. Now i know if they did do this i would but the HD-DVD version but what am thinking is surely they cant do this because then what about the 2 million or so peope who buy the launch systema nd dont want to shell out for the new one. Now this is my theory. They might bring one out later with HD-DVD drive in it when the format war is over so that people buy it who want hd-dvd playback. BUT they might say to the developers you can only make games on the double sided dvd so that all the owners of the xbox 360 can play it. Do you think thats a reasonable comprimise that Microsoft might be willing to make? well its my view any way and it could be totaly wrong.

 

I got your crap Nephilim, these consoles are going to put PCs to shame for two to three years, then they'll catch up. Then after five years when the next gen is ready, PCs will be way better, like they are now versus the PS2 and Xbox. Then PS4 and Xbox trying to hard60 will do it all over again. This is my, unprofessional, industry forecast.

Let's go... actually I'd rather not. About fourth year into these consoles PC will be my choice until the next-gen comes around again. PC is great becasue it can always be updated as needed.

I was hoping this thread could make 1000 without the noob flaming, but, while I was on vacation (short, but good), it turned into a big old, fat, ugly flamefest involving nothing but rumors and theory.

 

In my opinion....

I really don't think we could classify either as a "SuperComputer", I think thats just a marketing ploy (Sony) and comes with a console that didn't quite meet the "vision" of the creator.

As for the comparison of consoles vs. computers. I doubt that it will take 4-5 years for PCs to outperform these consoles. But, they are two independant markets. I think PCs will outperform both consoles (real-world performance) within at least a year (if not sooner) of release. Plus, they are usefull for many tasks beyond gaming. But they obviously wont compare in "value".

nVidia has already realeased the GF7800 which is probably close to the "RSX".

There are two aspects for each console. CPU, and GPU. Near term performance will probably be determined by the programming hurdle that developers will have to overcome. Once developers get their programming up to par(second/third generation games), I think the CPUs will far outperform the GPUs. especially since they will both be more efficient in graphics output than physics/AI, which suggests that even when the programming reaches a point where it can use the full potential of the CPUs, it would require a much more powerful GPU to remove the bottle neck, so that the CPU can be juiced for its full potential.

I think that both consoles would have surely benefited by implementing some sort of removable/upgradeable graphics chip. Any opinions?

All in all, I am a PC gamer at heart, and I will still probably buy both at some point.

I think value is the key in comparison.

Who can complain about paying $300-400 for a $600+ grapics chip, not to mention the free cell/xenon cpu, wireless controller, blueray/hddvd-rom, 700mhz GDDR3, wifi, and, oh yeah, hard drives too ;P


PS - Feel free to comment on my $0.02!

 

my point of view is that i stand next to the PS3 ONLY because i have been a loyal ps'er for a ver long time, and its all prefrences,and to me i think that the only reason each person sticks up for a side is because they were first introduced to it, (but either way Nintendo got blown off the map{i think there still pissed because no one evr really got into the game cube because all the other systems had already been released}so we should all just agree that the systems may have certain perks about them, some beating others in areas, vice versa, and that there will always be a war between sony and XB because that wat happens when there are 2 top of the line systems that every1 craves and likes. (my point, disagree or agree, ive been watching and reading 4 a while.)


(ps. ms should pull up there diapers and just let the PS3 have the software and hardware they want, wtf is it to them jeeze..)

 

lol lets take a break from this top of the line stardards and remmeber the good ol' jaguar LMFAO man that thing was a peice...

 

2 more noobs, just like reasons predicted. i love my sig.

 

I am definately goin 2 buy a ps3 cause i had a ps 1 now ps2 and psp next ps3.....the ps3 looks kind of cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I wonder what Socom 4 is going to be like on PS3? Has anyone seen anything about it?

@Wvengence, yes the PS3 claims are in SP (single precision), but so are the ones for the 360, doesn't matter as long as the unit for comparison is the same(PS3 is going to perform 64-bit better anyways, supposedly). DP is like ~32-36 GFLOPS, but that's just the cell, which is 218 GFLOPS SP. The RSX is claimed at 1.8 TFLOPS, which accounts for the majority of the power. When you take in the full 2 TFLOPS, then take it down to DP, it's still big, and bigger than the Xenon and Xenos (Xbox 360).

@anyone claiming it's just a 7800...
1. nVidia says it's not just a version of the 7800 GTX OC, says anyway.
2. nVidia has said nothing else, not even transistor count, which you find estimated off of other information at 300 million. This leaves room for extreme error, given nVidia may put the pipelines on a daughterboard, thus explaining the 1.8 TFLOPS. The RSX may, may not, rumored in other words, has another cell on one of two boards. Again, daughter board becomes more and more likely with the 1.8 TFLOPS rating.
3 nVidia is tight lipped and the RSX remains a mystery unlike the Xenos.
4. Lots of rumors, no hardcore info yet.

 

Reasons: I never once claimed that this was a comparison with the 360. I was specifically matching a statement that someone made saying that the PS3 was ranked "Right below the number one super computer". That's it, that's all.

As a side note, the cell on DP for Sony would be around 19 or 20 and the RSX might add an additional 100 if your lucky... Since you brought it up though, the 360 might beat that (no facts here, but then there aren't any for the PS3 either) number. Fact is, we don't know and you can't be certain that the PS3 will or not.

Still nothing on the MP3 side for PS3...