people sayin x-box 360has more powerful graphics chip

it probably might but i dont care.that doesnt mean it has better graphics.the ps3 can compute 2(or 1.8 to be technical)terraflops and the 360 can only do one . which will have better graphics u be the judge

 

it has been proven that 1.8 will actually not be used only 1 from the 1.8, you can read that on most good tech websites.

 

who cares about the graphics, didnt help ms the first time around why does it matter now.

 

then why do always say that wii has not got the graphics to win the war.

 

no, Wii just doesnt have the good games...ill admit Galaxy looks good and so does SSBB, but if you look at the last two generations, you'll find the same thing is happening...

Nintendo always has the best launch with their first party titles, and then 5 years from their launch, you'll be waiting 2 years just to play Zelda, while PS3 will have 1 million games, and about 10% of them are just as good as Nintendo first party games...the same tihng will happen, i can guarantee it, and im not going to be bought in by a good launch this time around.

 

The Wii is getting a decent amount of 3rd party support in comparison to the Gamecube. (I was shocked when I learned that even Final Fantasy is coming to the system.)
Anyhow, I think that it might be different enough that any game for the Wii would be sort of an "exclusive", and any game for the ps3/360 would also be an "exclusive". Just another reason I'm glad my roommate is a Sony fan.

FLOPS are a terrible, terrible base to judge which will be graphically superior.

So true. Good games are really just a scam. Luckily you won't get duped again. Lol.

Just kidding. I just felt like taking what you said out of context because it made me laugh. I see what you're saying.

 

another thing. ps3 can do 218 gigaflops and the 360 can only do 115.this means more realistic game physics and more realistic artificial intelligence

 

im pretty happy to see so far that atleast sony is at the time keeping pace graphically with the 360. that was one area in particular that always was owned by xbox, so to have things almost on par seems good to me. i must say im not a technical person nor do i get into hardcore technical comparissons, i let my eyes do the comparing and if they are almost equal...so be it

 

some proof of my claim 218(ps3) vs 115(x-360) http://game.biglobe.ne.jp/gamersta/images/2005/06/p50_02_5.jpg

 

thats all nice but the bottom line is gears of war and mass effect is better then anything sony showed off, and considering that, xbox 360 is easier to develope for the ps3 is harder to develope for and already a year beind so how will it catch up.

also you said the physics will be better and ai, that is most true but all i can say for that is, i only really play xbox live, whcih is technically against the human brain so......

 

If graphics dont really matter then why do all you fans of sony rave of about blu-ray and 1080p that just seems a little strange..True it didnt help MS win last time but now that MS is putting a solid lineup of games they will have whta won the war ofr sony last war and that is games.They WILL defeat sony is that aspect this go round.Sequels get old, i mean one or two for your top games is alright but 65% of their upcoming line-up are sequels.

 

no gears of war doesn't stand a chance when you compare it to incredible games like metal gear 4

 

No, it means nothing. Enough with tflops already.

The Pentium 4 has two double pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64
can perform 8.4 billion operations per second. By this silly console marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon 64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64.
Any AnandTech reader should know that's hardly the case.

Any gamer should realize by now that flops are meaningless, especially when they're used as marketing hype and trying to 1-up competition.

 

perfectly said. u got there b4 me!! argh.

and who eva siad that graphics chip doesnt matter, but the processor does. R U INSANE.
the graphics chip is by far the most important component for games. ANY body who knows anything about computers knows that.

98% of what ive just read in this post is cobblars, nobody except oofrome knows what they are talking about.

 

thruthman you leave the forum for like 2 mounths, leaving me to deal with the ps3 fanboys, knowing that i do not know much about pc's and then you put me in the group of "cobblars".

shame on you, lol.

 

does the 360 actually have a better graphics chip or just a rumor

 

rumor, but its not by too much.

 

does the 360 actually have a better graphics chip or just a rumor (Quote)
it does....but only slightly.

 

Actually it depends on how you use it. In theory, things can be done with the 360 chip that cannot be done with the RSX, but honestly, the graphics on both systems will be similar all the way through the console's lives...

 

' ' Actually it depends on how you use it. In theory, things can be done with the 360 chip that cannot be done with the RSX, but honestly, the graphics on both systems will be similar all the way through the console's lives... ' '


the RSX is still in the works ,so anybody who says and thinks the 360 and ps3 will have similar graphics or the 360 chip will do this better is a moron ,beacuase the RSX isnt out yet. though last time i checked
RSX had the power of several top notch geforce's.

so yeah RSX is several times better then the 6 month old 360 chip.
just wait and see.