Official PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. N. Revolution

How many r on here right now?

 

522 posts including this one just past half way. 25 posts per page.

 

I can see a reverse of the situation tha occurred last time around.

The PS3 this time has more power, and is later coming out, which was the case with the original xbox last time.

However, let's hope that that reversed idea doesnt stem to unit sales.
It is pretty clear that the PS2 was the more popular console, regardless of whether you would agree it is better than the competition or not.

The PS3's 22,400mhz 7-way core should prove interesting to say the least, versus MS' 9600mhz 3-way equivalent.
Nintendo's revolution should not really be entered into this particular aspect of the bout, as it is not designed to be a console doing what a PC does, it is supposed to be a return to the days of when you could pick up the controller and doss for 10 minutes before going out, yet still provide involving gameplay.

Nintendo also want to make the revolution cheap and due to lower clock speeds than the rival consoles, that wil be easy.

One does wonder what will happen to the PC industry when these systems appear - a console being sold for £300 with the equivalent of two 6800 ultras in SLi harmony...
Makes your intel graphics chip look very foolish, eh?

 

"Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS"

These were taken from IGN. Note that it says PowerPC-Base core. Now Cells are typically One PPE and up to 8 SPE's and if they had more than one, they would say 2xPowerPC-Based...

I noted the VMX unit per core, but that could mean 1 per SPE or 1 per PPE (giving 7 or 1). Fact of the matter is that Sony has stated it has one Cell, with one core and 8 SPE's (7 used). I'm not saying that it won't be fast because the PPE works almost exclusively in a controlling function but it is not even close to the same as saying that it has 7 processors.

As for putting a game in... That is what caching is about. (For the xbox) During the loading screen, the game is furiously copying data to the HDD to be used. The idea being that teh game predicts what data will be needed in the future and when no data is being requested, the HDD can then request data from the DVD and store it BEFORE the RAM requires it. That way, when the call from RAM arrives, the HDD can respond 20 times faster... When the system is busy with that data, the HDD can request more.

Sony could place that data into the XDR RAM, but this would drastically cut down on what is available for the game and also shorten levels, adding more and longer load points as it has 256MB total vs say 2GB on a drive...

Typically, anything that I do say can and/or is backed by fact (which I tend to add links to)or I will note that while I have read information, I don't have the source and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I do thank you for this comment though, as I believe that through debate, one gets to see multiple points of view and maybe learn things we didn't consider, ourselves.

 

Perhaps we should consider starting a new thread for Hardware discussions, though. When you start talking about actual performance and posting your calculations, it does get difficult to keep it short.

Try and be considerate to the other forum readers and all.

 

I will be switching between many different points here, hope I don't confuse anyone.(All below statements are mixed opinions of mine, provided with facts.)

The good thing is I know that I think the playstation 3 looks...umm... ...
The bad news for people that like sony is that like sony is that you can't use your "the Xbox costs money to play online" junk.

The good news for people that like Microsoft is that Xbox live has superior sound quality(starter kits have a microphone so less third-party microphones) a centralized Live service(unlike Playstation's "everyone makes their own online service" thing, so that games don't take forever to join or find.

The good news for sony fans is you can try to "brag" about how you think that the Playstation 3 will also have free online like the Playstation 2 even though nothing has been stated yet, and how you can say bad things about the Xbox becuase you are a Playstation fan and you are just so special.

If the playstation 3's cells are so good, why do PC's not utilize this technogy? The playstation 3's controller will change before launch, if it doesn't it will be similar to what happened with the old Xbox controllers... Which weren't actually that bad.
I believe a company should stick with what they do best instead of taking sales of other consoles by making thier own. *I'm looking at you Sony...

 

Good point on the HDD deal, I can't belive I missed that, I knew it, but the thought didn't come up in time. All in all though, I am damn sure that the PS3 will be drive cache enabled just the same as the 360, you just have to stick your own drive on it. Until you do, load times wil be upped. I was thinking that the optics the PS3 is using may be capable of retriving and sending information faster than what we see today. It's very likely that Blu-ray will be much faster, not as fast as a serial ata 150, but w/out HDD it won't be as slow as it is with the PS2, not even close. If you put an HDD on the PS2, but still use the disc, does the PS2 drive cache?

"the 2.5" SCSI drives ARE new technology and you won't see anything much better in a years time." The PS3 is now slated for spring 2006. This is closing in on a years time, I think the new drive technology will be first seen on this, and possibly more devices before/after it's lauch. A year is a long time to go without a tech realease in this dept. Obviously they have the tech long before it gets released, and I'd bet it's inside the PS3 prototypes, and if they're done, the final product.

Yes, it's not the same as having seven processors, but It's getting there. If, if this cell does only ustilize 1 PPE with two threads, and can only "use" two of the seven SPEs at a time, it's not even near operating as if it had only two processors either.

Back to the "one VMX unit per core" deal, the best way of looking at it, rather than trying to figure it out, w/out proper information. Is to trust to a certain degree the spec "1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS" So not including the, probally, 64-bit enabled SPE, the 218 GFLOPS is our best way of comparing. Now what's the tfpp of the 360, you'd have to find a off. spec on just the CPU. I am using the spec sheet off xbox.com and they don't specify. You could do some serious math though to come up with a rough etsimate. Someone do it, because I'm not.

What would really be slap in the face, would be to find out the PS3 has multiple cell processors, that would set it far ahead, even to have two.

The biggest two things is that 1. we don't have adequate info to assess either processor against the other, and 2. drive caching is not an upperhand for xbox 360, the PS3 HDD just doesn't come in the same box, but buy it.

I want a serious yes or no answer to both these satements from you, do you agree? And in the end when we have every thing we need to know about both systems, do you really think the xbox 360 is going to have overall better performance? Or be a more affordable and feature rich, user friendly system, substantially near that of the PS3's hardware?

As far as long posts, too bad, make a hardware thread, give me a link and I'll follow, until then...

 

First off, the stats that I used for the DVD comparison were from the Sony BW-RU101 Blue Ray writer. The BR-DVD does have faster speeds than a standard DVD, but I took that into account.

The PS2 doesn't use drive caching, no. The problem there is that the game effectively needs to be recompiled to re-order the execution of threads more efficiently if you are using caching. That has the effect of pretty much putting 2 games onto a disk, on with a drive and one without. This is why I say that developers probably won't write games that use it if it's not there.

As for HDD technology, there is some things floating around but nothing that will have an effect on the PS3 by spring. Perpendicular recording will be the next big technology and that just allows them to pack more space on.

I will skip the Cell's here for now. I have some interesting stats from a High Performance Computing seminar where IBM was detailing the Cell's and I need to dig it up before I start into this area.
(The PS3 could have 2 Cells, but no more than that. However, only one cell is listed in the specs, so we go with that)

Answer 1. I do think that there is enough information to compare the processors on a hardware level BUT there is no information on the software required to program them which is what allows a person to get the most from the processor. (Hypothetically, if the Cell were twice as fast, but you could only program to get half the power, then they are equal)

Answer 2: Drive Caching could be one of the upper hands... As I noted above, Dev's would be required to recompile the game with 2 different versions in order to support 'optional caching'. While the Blue Ray allows them the space, most won't do it. (None did for the PS2) If they are crunched for time or money, they could (and typically would) just skip the Caching version because the NEED to have a non-drive version as that will work regardless. The drive version would be a nice extra at that point.

However, I think it will come down to Developer support (who lets them produce better games quicker and cheaper) and online (which, again, becomes difficult without a HDD).

For the last question, I think both consoles will wind up being equal when the smoke clears. I personally think that the Cell is more powerful, but that the 360 GPU (while not as fast) will be better than the RSX and that the extra CPU power of the PS3 will be required to take up the slack graphically.

I'll start a new thread when I dig up the Cell stats...

 

The same applies for xbox 360. Developers don't have to use drive caching on the 360 either if they don't want to or don't have time. If 360 developers use drive caching and they develope the same game for PS3, then they will probally have drive caching on the PS3 version of the game. Developers for PS3 wouldn't want to be left in the dust technologically by not including drive caching, if the person does have a drive, which almost all will and 100% of those who know it will effect performance will. Both system developers can choose to include it or not, PS3 developers would be foolish not to, spending that much time and money on a game, and then not spending a relatively small amount of time to add that in (compared to how much time it will take anyway to make a game like this).

My point is, that almost everyone will buy the drive near when they get the system, and therefore I hope developers would be samrt enoug to anticipate this. It's obvious everyone will get a drive, and obvious that devel. know this, and again, obvious that the games will therefore be drive cache enabled.

 

The same doesn't apply to the 360. What typically happens is that developers write their code, then use a compiler (in this case, I believe supplied by Sony/MS) to form that code into a usable form. When this is done, the compiler will organize lines of code to optimize things like symetric processing (running simular threads on multiple cores) and timing issues for things like caching.

Since the 360 has a HDD standard, that means that when the code is compilied, the game will be designed to use the hardware in certain ways (such as caching).

If the PS3 doesn't have a HDD standard, then the Developer MUST make the game so that it doesn't use caching. At that point, they would then have the option to recompile their game using a different set that could take advantage of the drive BUT they can't do this by default because they don't know if you will have a drive. So, IF (Big if here) they have the time, money and aren't lazy then they could also add a version of the game that uses the drive. They had that option for the PS2 and none of them did it, so don't be shocked if that repeats on the PS3.

Developers don't need to care about performance, because their game will play just like every other groups that doesn't use caching.

The only people that should care is Sony, but (this is conjecture) it seems that they promised all this high tech stuff that costs $$$ and now they need to cut things to have any hope of competing with the 360. Remember that they initially tried to say that the PS3 would be around $500, where told that no one would buy it at that price and then went for $450 and finally backed down to $370.

Here is a link for the Hardware thread...
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/199199

 

We still don't know for sure if an HDD is or is not standard on the PS3. If drive caching is going to play such an important role, Sony has a year to make a drive standard and do it. Sony will also have a look inside the 360 when it's released much before, and if anything is drastic, they can push back the release, as usual, and make minor changes. Including a HDD and/or tweaking it and making developers to drive cache. If it's going to slow performance and be a significant leg up for the 360, then PS3 has plenty of time and the ability, to easily do it to. Because the developers didn't do it on PS2, is because not many (probally all afterdawn people do) don't have an HDD. I don't, it's worthless with the PS3 a year away and having to mod for movies etc. Bottom line: if it becomes any significance (apparently it is) nothing stops (price up a little) Sony from including a 10-20 gig HDD and doing the same thing.

If we can identify this, Sony foresaw this long before we did, and will address it easily. That's why they haven't given a yes or no to alot of things yet.

Let's say they don't make a HDD standard. Would developers sacrifice performance and sales to a competing system (or not competing, making the game for both) by not making a version to utilize an HDD most will have the first day they buy the system? In all reality, even if it isn't in the same package as the PS3, the HDD and another controller are what you buy with it or the next week (I hope most of you have one of the many memory types for digital cameras that the PS3 uses too) Why is MS going with another type of one way only memory card? I know, they have to make up for the included drive somewhere. Can you belive we payed $30 for a giant(size) 8MB memory card only for PS2. MS is look like it is keeping tradition and making $$$. Sony uses Memory Stick standard/Duo PRO, SD standard/mini and CompactFlash (Type I, II). I have 3 memory stick pro and 3 memory stick pro duo and 2 memory stick standard plus 1+ of the others of those except compactflash type I already. I can just pop my 2gig memory stick pro in and save whatever I want, load up music or movies etc onto the (maybe inc. maybe sold separate) HDD etc.

Things have changed since the PS2 and the PS3 almost has nothing in common with it beside the controller buttons and name. The PS2 not using games that are drive cache enabled is no reflection on what will happen, 6 years after the PS2, and 2 years after the HDD, Sony and the developers aren't thinking the same as when most were still using dial-up.

Sony will probally give up trying to compete the cost by too much, rather be $100-$150 more expensive and be the better sytem. Most people buying these new systems are prepared to spend $500+. The guessing on the $300-$400 range 360, is a barebones gaming system with none of those mainstream MTV selling points. Both full sytems will most likely be $450 and up, because you don't want to overestimate how much these companies can and probally will charge us. They're going to be selling roughly (might not be close, but you get the 1 for 1 almost losing money idea) $500 systems for hopefully $500, and make money on the accessories. Maybe Sony is smart and won't inlclude a drive, make money off it, and have both drive cache and not.

"BUT they can't do this by default because they don't know if you will have a drive"- yes, actually, yes they can do this standard with all their games, because they are smart enough to understand most will have a drive, and would want to match the 360 in this dept.

Sorry everyone for long post again.

 

Few things Cmmn.

First, lets stick to the specs. There is no HDD listed so we must assume that there is not one. That was your request.

Second. How many people got a HDD for the PS2? What makes you think that any more people are going to get one for the PS3? I feel safe in this claim simply because it happened with the PS2 for a reason. History repeats...

Third, I don't doubt that Sony forsaw this, but it's more a question of do they care? They are arogant which can be evidenced by comments like "The next generation of consoles starts when WE say it starts..." and believe that people will buy it regardless.

"yes, actually, yes they can do this standard with all their games" They 'could' do it standard with their games, yes. They could have done it with the PS2 as well, but they didn't. Developers 'could' have added 720p standard on their xbox games, but there are around 20 that actually do support it. Sure, they 'can' do it standard...

 

@ WVengence,
majornelson.com is a bad source to trust, i wouldnt be surprised if it is sponsored by MS. it is a very lopsided site with some false info.

 

No argument at all Solar... In fact, MajorNelson is the lead of the Xbox Live project and IS sponsored by MS. I will freely say that they are biased. I will also say that the Sony stats are every bit as biased and were released specifically on the points where they beat the 360 and ignore where it is lacking.

I think that both sources must be taken with a truckload of salt. I just bring out the MajorNelson.com comparison when I have to deal with people saying "Look, Sony says the PS3 is twice as powerful!!! 360 sucks." Not because the comparison is true, but it shows that the numbers can be manipulated to say whatever people want them to.

As a side note, can ANYONE tell me how Sony managed the claim of 1.8 TFLOPS from the RSX? This is the one number that remains inconcievable to me (Princess Bride plug there) and no one seems to know how it's done.

 

like this of course
RSX -> !!Some Magic Right Here!! -> 1.8RFlops output

 

Using what happened with the PS2 is pretty foolish. When the PS3 comes out, digital media, digital video, and digital photo enabled (kind of like the PSP, except better and more formats) the HDD will become a big part of the system. Saying that this didn't go for the PS2 so it won't go for the PS3, is like saying that the PS2 will not play games online because PS1 didn't play online.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/621/621155p1.html As far as the HDD goes take at look at this june 1st article from ign.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615091/vids_1.html It's very long, but you need to watch it.

Recap:

CPU- 360's= 115 GFLOPS
PS3's= 218 GFLOPS

GPU/CPU- 360's= 9 billion dot product operations per second
PS3's= 51 billion dot product operations per second
360's= 48 billion shader operations per second
PS3's= 100 billion shader operations per second
(for sake of typing a long post I took the basics of each dept. CPU overall peformance, and what's really going to make a game look better off the GPU)

Overall the PS3's CPU looks better, and overall the PS3's GPU looks alot better. PS3, like the xbox, will rip music to HDD along with photos etc. PS3 will also have a built in web browser, I hope/assume the 360 will too. The PSP connects to the PS3 to gather data no matter where you are in the world off your HDD, and acts as a second screen/remote (sweet!). As long as you have a wireless hotspot, you can stream anything from your massive HDD to your PSP, such as your whole music collection, a movie, photo albums etc.

The PS3 is turning out feature rich as well, and performs better in the long run. What makes the difference is listed above. Please watch the press conference, and then watch videos pre-rendered if you please for the 360, they just don't look as good, game-play or pre-rendered. After investigating which vids are which, the 360's pre-rendered looks like the PS3's real-time gameplay. (not quite, but it's noticible the PS3 owns)

 

Why, why in the world are you convinced that the 5 year old PS2 is going to be a reflection of PS3. For another example, saying that people won't use an HDD on PS3 is like saying the PS3 will not have a wifi card because PS2 didn't we already know it does. It's like saying that people didn't buy memory stick pro duos for their PS2 (because they don't work with it, except through the PSP usb and max media manager for PS2) so then people won't buy memory sticks for PS3, even though that and SD and compactflash memory sticks are how you save game data.

It's foolish to reflect on the PS2 for the PS3 five years into the future. Once people discover the features and benefits of an HDD on the PS3 they will buy one right away (if it didn't come with). Some that make good money will even buy a $250 remote w/screen (PSP) for their PS3, when the features are understood and known about (the average consumer that will make Sony and MS the big bucks on these systems doesn't even know about them right now, except for those who watch MTV, will know about the 360).

 

1st of all i think you should all get your facts right,
the nintendo revolution "poo cube" has 400 mega gigleebytes and 576 ecto plasmonauts intertwined into the hard drive,
so because of this fact alone the sillicone entities that make up each graphical sprite are irrelovent to the skid marks in my underpants....ok
now that we have cleared that out you can tell me your hypothesis of the nintendo consiparcy theory written by Bogshmoff manalowe

 

1st of all i think you should all get your facts right,
the nintendo revolution "poo cube" has 400 mega gigleebytes and 576 ecto plasmonauts intertwined into the hard drive,
so because of this fact alone the sillicone entities that make up each graphical sprite are irrelovent to the skid marks in my underpants....ok
now that we have cleared that out you can tell me your hypothesis on the nintendo consiparcy theory written by Bogshmoff manalowe x2

 

Sorry Solar, has to be done.

Cmmnsense, your breaking your own request. The HDD isn't on the spec sheets, it's not included. I don't care if you can buy it later or not. No spec sheet, doesn't count.

Now since you want to pull out stats... I'll even use the same source
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

General CPU performance: 3 to 1 for the 360
GPU Shader Operations: 360=80, PS3=74.8
GPU programable Shader Ops: 360=240, PS3=228
Total System Bandwidth: 360=278.4, PS3=48

"When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance."

Now, all this comes straight from Microsoft so it is every bit as official as the information released from Sony.

As for your article from IGN, I've read it a few times. If they were planning on including a drive, they would have said "we have a 10GB drive but you can upgrade"... When you say "we haven't decided yet" they mean we don't want to include one but know we would get slammed for it and so won't say anything right now.

Otherwise, I'm not saying that the PS3 won't have a Wi-Fi card because the PS2 didn't. I'm saying that if it doesn't ship with a drive, most developers won't use and they won't. I use the point of the xbox/ps2 to illistrate that developers don't use the 'extra' features alot of the time...
Xbox=Built in Drive=Drive caching used by all games.
PS2=Optional Slot for drive=No caching used on ANY game.

Now, if people want to listen to their music or look at photo's and the like, they could just pop there Sony Memory card into the PS3. No need for a HDD to copy them to. Of course, there won't be any game benefits, because developers aren't going to use it. So people won't buy the HDD because there is no use for it and any support that 'might' have happened will dry up entirely.