Official PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. N. Revolution

PS3 only showed movies unlike 360 so to say it will have better graphics will be unknown untill they who game play.

 

the PS3 conrollers do look funny. but i think the xbox controller are better for GTA then PS2. the black and white button are better then L2 and R2 since you only have ur thomes moving.

 

So PPL xbox live for xbox360 is free??

 

I go with xbox 360, the ps3 has seven controllers. Thats good right? Wrong, if seven peple are playing splitscreen the screens are small. What will you do with 7 controllers any ways? you don't need that many controllers ( why not use all the space for other stuff and have 4 controllers?). Also microsoft isn't competing with pc, their releasing halo 3 on the day ps3 comes out, not the day windows ?? comes out. Also the xbox 360 can connect with a psp! I thought Sony and Microsoft were rivals also syntheti said, "dont get me wrong the graphics and gameplay on the xbox are supurb but the controller feels a little iffy" Everybody is used one type of controller ( unless somebody has every game syste and everyonce in a while plays all of them )

 

the ps3 has seven 'cause htats hoe much blootooth allows.u can still play with six.y r u complaining about something thats good.

f4n80y

 

Is it true that you can play on two TVs co-op and multiplayer with only one X360

 

The ps3 does and will ALWAYS have the biggest library out there. The problem for SONY is that half of the games out on the shelves(from what I see) suck ass.
Another question....how come when every1 says that GTA San Andreas kicks Halo2's butt in the rankings and shit.....would they also have GTA San Andreas on xbox to help the sales for xbox?

 

The reason why people say that GTA:SA kicked butt is because they don't know basic math.

By the time Christmas (2K4) was done Halo had sold around 4 million vs GTA:SA 5 million. Hence, everyone says GTA won... Now where basic math comes in is on release dates. GTA was out for 2.5 months by the time Christmas was done while Halo2 was out for 1.5 months. If you include an extra month of sales for H2 (Mid January) they the figure is 6.4 million (which was more than GTA:SA has sold to date, I believe).

So no, GTA was is the loser in that argument.

 

Wvengence, the specs sheets until changed or updated are considered fact, they become an official press release. As to the answer to most of your questions, Total floating point performance of the PS3 is near double that of the XBox 360, yes this isn't every little detail and different spec, but "working smarter, not harder" no matter what in-humanly concieved programming, this gap will not be filled. With the reliability of the spec sheets as a variable, the PS3 as it appears now will crunch numbers, the basis of every capability on a computer/concole significantly better in almost(keyword=almost, xbox does have it's areas) every department, especially graphics and processor. You have to look at the big picture in the TFLOPs not the things that when all added together will not affect the naked eye.

Most of the specs or features you and the other xbox 360 fans are pulling out are not significant in comparison to PS3's double the computing power. In the end if the CPU and GPU are ~1 TFLOP (xbox) the number of vertices etc. or "quality"/"real" it looks is limited along with smoothness of fast action.

Try not to be fanboys and pick apart at specs and features. The big picture is there. Look up what toatal floating point performance is if you don't understand, but in the end that's what is need to produce graphics and smooth action.

Wvengence, I don't have any CS degree or college experience in that dept., but enjoy reading about computers, pretty much every thing except actual "how-to" programming, because that's too much, if I knew about that proficiently I could go out right now and get a $50,000 a year job and screw college. And I really like stuff on how mathmatics and electricity (Outlet to transitors(CPU/GPU) to performance) affect graphics and speed. There is alot of publications out there, that if you read, you'll understand exactly why, when the shit hits the fan, the PS3 get's less on it. If your computer can't crunch numbers at the CPU and GPU stage, all the programming and other "faster" or "better" areas will just bottleneck right there, while you wait for 1 TFLOP to try and take on 2 TFLOPs.

 

Being that I was about to decay from the time it took to read like the first 2 pages of post I just decided to post from my point of view and many other MODDERS! Here it is...If the PS 3 dosen't have a hard drive, DONT BUY IT!! Why? Because If it dosent have a hard drive it cant be modded (I dont think) and if it cant be modded you CAN'T do stuff like put Linux on it or "backup" games on it ^_^ So if the Xbox has a hard drive then go for it!! I also think there will be alot more games for it then there was on the previous system. And I know that there will be alot more people buying it (because they just cant wait to get there greedy little hands on the next system that comes out, and I dont see why they shouldn't) So it would seem that that the PS systems are fighting a loosing battle But hey, If you like PS then XboXers wouldnt mind Giving you a T.K.O.
OMG that was awsome I just made up that line, "XboXers" "T.K.O" lol thats crazzy cool. Umm well thats pretty much all I have to say soo See ya

PS: Got any questions just send them to I_wanna_get_banned@afterdawn.com

 

Thankyou for repeating what I said. =)

You went to E3? I haven't felt the controller yet...

From my personal experience the shoulder buttons are a wonderful feature compared to the crappy black and white buttons. Most of the time I forget they're even there, and shoulder buttons are easier and more rememberable to press. Also, unless you're a very good console gamer, trying to accelerate and shoot at the same time is hard when you have to press two buttons at once, compared to a shoulder button and the square button (or whatever it is). =P

 

Wow, Dark_myth needs to get some stuff straight. The PS3 may or may not come with a hard drive included. There is, however, a 2.5" HDD bay for optional HDs, which makes more sense than including (and obviously price^ a little) a worthless 20GB HD like xbox 360. Wtf would you want a 20GB when HDs for when PS2 already has 40GB and up to at the least 120GB i've seen. Most will end up with another say ~100GB drive and try to sell the 20GB, which wil probally be only compatible with xbox, on ebay for next to no money. PS3 will probally cut it and leave it as an option, so you can buy a big one right away, for holding games and movie .iso Your statement is backed by retardation and stupidty. The PS3 will most likely not come with, but will have a hard drive similar to Xbox 360. Except I'd bet right now that the 360's HD will be a special accessory only for xbox, the PS3 will use 2.5" HDs which will probally universal with upcoming 2.5" devices (computers use 3.5").

 

Glad that you mentioned the CS degree. I do happen to have one and do make 50,000+ per year for it.

Now, before we start, let's clear up some things... First, listed specs. IF you accept the 2 TFLOP rating, fine. That really doesn't make up the entire system. Since we are going on listed stats, I will refer back to the Major Nelson article...
http://www.majornelson.com/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4/
Now since this IS based on listed stats for the 360, then it must also be true. Give it a read, it CLEARLY states that the overall performance for the 360 is 3 TIMES that of the PS3. Gotta be true, since it is published stats...

Now that we have established that the 360 is 3 times more powerful, "try not to be a fanboy and pick apart the stats".

For sake of reference, here is an article on procedural synthesis and the 360 GPU (as well as the Cell)...
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-1.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars
And these are by guys that know more than you or I. This will help to understand why the "Work smarter, not harder" comment is appropriate. Let's consider that this new technology allows you to reduce the data transfered to 1/10th (which seems to be a very conservative estimate but please read up on it for yourself) then it stands to reason that the PS3 would have to works 10 times harder to achieve the same result. You can dismiss this, but do the research and you will understand what I'm saying.

Lets also look at specs and features that ARE signifigant in regards to the PS3. NO HARD DRIVE... Before we start, read up on caching and how computers use it to improve speed as that will allow you to understand the specs I'm about to say.

Since you never bothered to explain why the PS3 would take a performance hit without a hard drive, let me. (I'm using the Sony BW-RU101 Blue-Ray writer for basic stats on the BR-DVD). Now, the Blue Ray has a read speed of 4.5-11 MB/second and a seek time of 110-200ms (Seek time indicates how quickly data can be accessed from said drive) using a SCSI bus. I assume that IDE would be slower due to the inherant nature of the buses (which I won't explain since I assume you will know why) and that Sony would use the cheaper bus, but will use the SCSI to be nice. To be fair, I will use stats for a 2.5 SCSI drive to compare (Cheetah to be exact) with a read speed of 60-205MB/second and a seek time of 4.1ms. So it can access data somewhere between 25-50 faster than a Blue Ray and 15-20 the data throughput... Those are relevant specs... End result, IF the PS3 had so much more processing power it would STILL be limited by the speed in which it can receive date from the source (The DVD in this case) and if you take the time to read and understand caching, then you will know why lack of HDD will KILL performance. I will reinterate that since we are using the published stats, then there is no HDD for the PS3.

The big picture is there. Look up what hard drive caching performance is if you don't understand, but in the end that's what is need to produce graphics and smooth action.

If your computer can't GET the numbers to crunch at the CPU and GPU stage, all the programming and other "faster" or "better" areas will just bottleneck right there, while you wait for 110ms-11MB speed to try and take on 4.1ms-205MB speed.

I will also note, don't think you can take specs from ATI's graphics processor cause it's way different... End result, the ATI GPU will ahnihillate the RSX and if you read on on Graphics, then you should be able to understand why. Please let me know if you disagree and I will gladly expain why that is too.

Lastly, take a look at the PS2. The Emotion Engine 'specs' place it (rightly) as a processor powerhouse that should have been capable of far more than the PS2 managed. Why didn't it? Easy. Processors are only part of the entire package and the PS2 bottlenecked the proccessor in a bunch of different ways.

"You have to look at the big picture in the TFLOPs not the things that when all added together will not affect the naked eye." If you want, I could recommend all sorts of reading on computer performance for you so you can understand just how ill informed that comment is. Your PS3 has to chew up all those 'supposed' TFLOPS just to do the same things that the 'work smarter, not harder' 360 can do because of all those things that when all added together WILL affect the end product.

End result... The Cell/PS3 can be a hundred times faster and if it can only get information at 1/10th the spead, then it's still only 1/10th the speed (weekest link and all).

Now, I do appologize for the advesarial tone of my response, but you had effectively dismissed my knowledge, career and point of view by ignoring it and implying that I don't understand what happens when the "shit hits the fan". The fact is that I understand quite well and you might want to do more research about computer performance before you label me as just a 'fanboy'.

 

Cmmnsense: "Your statement is backed by retardation and stupidty" Irony?

"There is, however, a 2.5" HDD bay for optional HDs, which makes more sense than including (and obviously price^ a little) a worthless 20GB HD like xbox 360. Wtf would you want a 20GB when HDs for when PS2 already has 40GB and up to at the least 120GB"

Let's be clear here. If the HDD isn't included with the system by default then developers WON'T write games that use it (look at the PS2 as a wonderful example). If they don't write games to use the drive, go back and read up on caching again.

Otherwise, you might want to cut back on your insults since including a drive (even a worthless 20GB one) makes alot more sense than not having one. Talk to a game developer if you don't believe me. There is a ALOT of sense to the HDD.

 

As a side note, I can easily start adding information regarding the various software tools that MS lined up for the Xbox 360.

and before anyone makes a dumb comment like "Software doesn't matter"... Here is a nice historical fact. In 1984, IBM bought a small operating system from someone and (what was different for the time) agreed to allow it to be sold outside of IBM systems with the quote "Why not, it's just software. The hardware is what's important." The person that sold it, Bill Gates, the OS, DOS.

But hey, I'm sure that it really IS the hardware that matters...

 

i was refering to playing gta series on xbox
the ps2 controller is more comfortable and the shoulder buttons were nice

 

i just watched spike tv's ultimate gamer e3
they let they guy play gears of war for xbox 360 damn that looked nice really smooth graphics

 

Ah, I love numbers... Let's touch upon the 2 TFLOP vs 1 TFLOP issue for a moment...

What would you say if I told you that the 1 TFLOP rating was based upon the CPU alone? Or how about the GPU? Do you know which? No? So the Sony 'fanboys' suck back the numbers Fony threw at them as truth. Now, sine 1.8 of the 2 TFLOPS comes from the RSX gpu, let's look at a comparison (the only one near the two) of the G70 vs the R520 which the 2 consoles are based upon.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23752

It seems that the G70 came somewhere near 75% of the power of the ATI R520. Now if we assume that the console versions will be just as purportional (since they are based on these chips) then that would mean the 360's GPU is more powerful. Infact, using the same ratio (75%) then it would mean that the 360 could manage 2.4TFLOPS from the GPU alone...

Be careful when you start throwing numbers around... They may not say what you think...

 

I am not a loser that can sit on the computer all day and type, like Wvengence obviously can.

Your HDD comparison is based off an existing 2.5" Cheetah. This comparison cannot therfore be used, in 2006 much different technology and capabilities will be available along with Sony's PS3's HDD. It is not necessarily true that in almost a year Sony will release HDD with better performance, but it is goddamn common sense (yes, I know leave that one alone please) that the HDD will perform un-godly better than today's HDD's, considering the way computer tech advances. So forget your drive caching facts and comparison until you really know what both sides HDDs are going to look like, wow there goes two pages off your post.

Hey, buy an HDD with it, don't bitch about it not coming with, both companies already sell the hardware for damn near a loss and make the money off games etc. No one is ripping you off.

You do know your stuff, I'll admit that, but the only bad thing is that the specs released don't specifily shit about drive caching, they are so vague and basic right now, just like you see when you buy a damn computer. For godsake where the hell are you getting these specs, they very may well be speculated and web sites may say them, but if they don't come from the horses mouth they're bullshit until officially released.

"general purpose computing", gaming isn't general purpose, having itunes, ie, and dvd shrink laying down commands at once is general purpose. Major nelson.com doesn't back that damn statement up at all, three cores are not better than one, neccessarily. Three times more powerful my ass. 8 SPEs at 3.2 will own a 3 core CPU at 3.2GHz. An SPE acts like another core, wtf does a core do, processes a command basically. Wtf does an SPE do, wow maybe that's(and GPU) why the TOTAL, not just GPU or CPU, floting point performance comes from.

Damn everything you pull out would make the PS3 look less pwoerful indeed. But it's backed by only speculation and a damn xbox site, how the hell would they know all about the PS3, all they know is what we know from the spec sheet.

Take your argument from spec sheet only please, I don't see shit about drive caching on the PS3 spec sheet, and it is probally not on xbox 360's either, and if it is, so what, it's not released by sony so you can't compare. And you don't know for sure if it's not coming with an HDD, Sony didn't say specifically. Give me a link to where you get all these specs, especially drive caching considering this is where your whole argument comes from. I could care less which is more powerful, because i'm a fan of neither and am buying them both on their releases. I don't even like either company more than the other, but this cell and both GPU's are custom for these consoles and what you see on other machines is not the same, if IBM's work station class cell was coming on the PS3 then it would really kick ass with 4.6GHz 8 SPE. Please, I already think your very well versed in CS, but please use the spec sheets, damn.

Print out both, OFFICIAL, spec sheets, and lay them side by side. Now make another argument, this is all that matters because everything else is just speculation, again G4 tv asked Sony if the cell or GPU etc. would be on any other machines, and the rep stated that it's all custom for just the PS3, the spec sheet is it folks, sadly that's all we have. You don't need a CS degree to read a spec sheet and now how a SPE relates to a core. You can't even get a CS degree at MN state you have to go to the techie with the nurses.