I heard it debated, and I understand it being a better console can be debated. But I mean I think bottom line the PS3 has the most power. I searched and couldn't find a discussion about this. If there is one let me know and lock this post. Anyways, If you think the PS3 isn't the most powerful post it here and you think it is post it here too. Lets try to compromise. And try not to flame.

On a specsheet.
the ps3 is written down to be more powerful.
but according to the web the xbox 360 can dish the power out better due to its custom video card can handle it better.
(ill try find the link to back this later)

here's one of the sites for comparing the ps3vsxbox360
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6125087/index.html?type=tech

lol well i dunno. I think in terms of raw power it must go to the PS3.

But then i hear things about graphics card being better on the 360 etc and the PS3 has bottleneck yada so i dont think there is actually a definite anwser. Ask again next christmas and we may have an anwser. :D

Yea but I mean in the end. If Sony can pull its head out of its ass, and get it together and get some good games. Then, I think that the PS3 will have the best looking games. I mean if people really tried to make a good game, I think that the game could look better than any console on the PS3 just because it is a $600 powerhouse (paperweight). I mean I think the ps3 has the ability to make better looking games. I'm not saying they are out there I'm not even saying they are gonna be out there, but it has the ability to make better games than any console I mean with that power think of the AI they could have in the game, the graphics and how many objects on the screen they could have.

ps3 = raw power
360=style=good library of games + An army of crazy fanboy's.
Wii= no power at all = games suck on it =console is shit

ps3 = raw power
360=style=good library of games + An army of crazy fanboy's.
Wii= no power at all = games suck on it =console is shit

Yea that is about the way I look at it.

Ps3 = Doesnt Overheat, No FRICKEN GAMES, Games are crappy in overall, even graphics are not Next Gen

360= AWSOME games, preffered graphics, ring of fire is crap, awsome graphics

Wii= Awsome games, kiddie console somtimes, hard to move with the motion censored remotes when playing shooters

Ps3 = Doesnt Overheat, No FRICKEN GAMES, Games are crappy in overall, even graphics are not Next Gen

360= AWSOME games, preffered graphics, ring of fire is crap, awsome graphics

Wii= Awsome games, kiddie console somtimes, hard to move with the motion censored remotes when playing shooters

True but the graphics are not next gen because if you're a developer which one do you want to spend more money on looking good? The one that didn't sell alot of consoles or the one that has a huge consumer base. That is why the games don't look as good. It's because the game companies don't want to spend that much time and money making a game look cleaner and better for something they are going to get less money for.

Given the fact that the PS3 isn't making use of all that "raw power", frankly means it doesn't have said power at all.

At least right now.

Yea that is about the way I look at it.

im glad im not the only one who sees it like that

Given the fact that the PS3 isn't making use of all that "raw power", frankly means it doesn't have said power at all.

At least right now.

Yea true but it does have it in there lol. That is the point I'm getting at that all the 360 fanboys don't want to admit.

Ps3 = ... Games are crappy in overall, even graphics are not Next Gen

Your depth of knowledge concerning PS3 content and capabilities has left us stunned. Your opinions are obviously without equal, and will be valued above all others in this section of the sarcastic gamer forums. Please continue to enlighten us with your firsthand experience on this console.

Wow, how'd I miss this thread... we've discussed this very topic over at the GamerCast Network forums a couple times and there are some things that need to be considered...

Yeah, most people "in the know" clearly admit the PS3 has more computational power. Period. The Cell and it's SPEs when properly utilized can run circles around a system like the 360 even with it's three cores. For some types of processing this difference is more pronounced than others.

Some of you have mentioned how the GPU on the 360 is more powerful than the GPU on the PS3 and give the very barebones description of that situation, yes, it's true. But what isn't clear is that the way the Cell + SPEs work, some of the workload that traditionally would be done via the GPU can be done by one (or more) of the SPEs and simply fed to the GPU. When you look at it that way, the benefits of the 360's GPU are countered and once people come to grips with the techniques and true power of the SPEs, expect this to continue to improve. Keep in mind that the original spec for the PS3 had the Cell processor doing the GPU duties as well. SPEs are very efficient at the type of calculations that a GPU would typically be doing.

Lastly, realize that the PS3 is starting to hold its own even on multiplatform titles (a public sign that third parties are coming to grips with coding on the PS3 and using the SPEs) while some of the 1st/2nd party titles are looking amazing even when compared to the best shown on the 360... as developers continue to gain skills, we can expect the "effective" general computing and graphical computing aspects of the PS3 to increase... by many accounts, the 360's relative familiarity for modern programmers would tend to indicate they're already pushing the hardware much closer to its potential than the admittedly more foreign PS3 which thrives mainly when it's parallel computing aspects are leveraged.

What I'm getting at there is people are saying the 360 has better games and that can definitely be countered over time... as of right now, the difference between a high-end 360 game and a high-end PS3 game is not very different at all... over time, as developers can harness the PS3's resources, I'm confident we'll see the PS3 pull away in terms of sheer abilities in terms of what it can pull off in-game both computationally and graphically... the same can't be said for the 360.

I've long said the Wii will peak first, the 360 2nd, the PS3 third... there will be a time when heads turn to see the PS3 for what it should've been at launch... a powerhouse. Sony's been directly involved with many of the hurdles they're dealing with by either doing the wrong thing or by doing nothing, but I think they'll recover in '08 to a VERY large degree... it's too early to say now, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Sony catch MS by Holiday '08. When you look at the timeline, the performance of the PS3 and 360 aren't too terribly dissimilar. I didn't get a 360 the entire first year because it was uncompelling to me... but since I got mine, things have really ramped up for it.

Wow, how'd I miss this thread... we've discussed this very topic over at the GamerCast Network forums a couple times and there are some things that need to be considered...

Yeah, most people "in the know" clearly admit the PS3 has more computational power. Period. The Cell and it's SPEs when properly utilized can run circles around a system like the 360 even with it's three cores. For some types of processing this difference is more pronounced than others.

Some of you have mentioned how the GPU on the 360 is more powerful than the GPU on the PS3 and give the very barebones description of that situation, yes, it's true. But what isn't clear is that the way the Cell + SPEs work, some of the workload that traditionally would be done via the GPU can be done by one (or more) of the SPEs and simply fed to the GPU. When you look at it that way, the benefits of the 360's GPU are countered and once people come to grips with the techniques and true power of the SPEs, expect this to continue to improve. Keep in mind that the original spec for the PS3 had the Cell processor doing the GPU duties as well. SPEs are very efficient at the type of calculations that a GPU would typically be doing.

Lastly, realize that the PS3 is starting to hold its own even on multiplatform titles (a public sign that third parties are coming to grips with coding on the PS3 and using the SPEs) while some of the 1st/2nd party titles are looking amazing even when compared to the best shown on the 360... as developers continue to gain skills, we can expect the "effective" general computing and graphical computing aspects of the PS3 to increase... by many accounts, the 360's relative familiarity for modern programmers would tend to indicate they're already pushing the hardware much closer to its potential than the admittedly more foreign PS3 which thrives mainly when it's parallel computing aspects are leveraged.

What I'm getting at there is people are saying the 360 has better games and that can definitely be countered over time... as of right now, the difference between a high-end 360 game and a high-end PS3 game is not very different at all... over time, as developers can harness the PS3's resources, I'm confident we'll see the PS3 pull away in terms of sheer abilities in terms of what it can pull off in-game both computationally and graphically... the same can't be said for the 360.

I've long said the Wii will peak first, the 360 2nd, the PS3 third... there will be a time when heads turn to see the PS3 for what it should've been at launch... a powerhouse. Sony's been directly involved with many of the hurdles they're dealing with by either doing the wrong thing or by doing nothing, but I think they'll recover in '08 to a VERY large degree... it's too early to say now, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Sony catch MS by Holiday '08. When you look at the timeline, the performance of the PS3 and 360 aren't too terribly dissimilar. I didn't get a 360 the entire first year because it was uncompelling to me... but since I got mine, things have really ramped up for it.

Damn thoughtful of you to come out and put it in terms they could understand. I knew it had the capability to be a lot more powerful then the 360 I just didn't know all the technical terms to defend my argument. Major props to you and thank you for elaborating for us. Bottom line like he said is that the Ps3 is more powerful... though it isn't taking nearly full advantage of that power yet, and new to me like he also said (don't know why I didn't think of it.) the 360 is closer to it's peek as of now then the Ps3.

baset on mi knowlage:
'power' kan mean more then just who kan fit more objects on teh screen.
ps3: better grafix
360: much better online suport, bigger hard drive, emulation software, windows vista integration, and better gamez
so does power mean looks better or funner?

baset on mi knowlage:
'power' kan mean more then just who kan fit more objects on teh screen.
ps3: better grafix
360: much better online suport, bigger hard drive, emulation software, windows vista integration, and better gamez
so does power mean looks better or funner?

ho-ho-ho. Just wait until Lono finds this post.

baset on mi knowlage:
'power' kan mean more then just who kan fit more objects on teh screen.
ps3: better grafix
360: much better online suport, bigger hard drive, emulation software, windows vista integration, and better gamez
so does power mean looks better or funner?


Hey welcome back... glad to see nothing's changed. See you in... okay, never.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/EmerilBan.jpg

For those curious why Sniper68 got banned, it's related to much more than this post so please don't think it was because of him speaking poorly of the PS3 or anything petty like that. Trust me, he was here to be disruptive, not to contribute anything remotely positive to our community.

His spelling would have been reason enough ;)

The picture is cool though. I bet you have been waiting a long time to use it, aren't you?

I bet you have been waiting a long time to use it, aren't you?


Occasionally... I'd like to use it more often than I do, yeah... I draw the line where one person's participation causes multiple other people to not participate though... that's not the way to grow a community.

yeah the ps3 is teh bettah than teh xblockx, and heres why:

Its not from MS!
Twice the power
Hard Drive(which means that the developers have not to worry about the a crappy core version without one)
Blue Ray
No RROD!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!
Free online play(ok its not as good as live, BUT ITS FREEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!)
MGS, FFS, GT5, Killzone 3, Heavenly Sword , Assasins Creed, Driver 5, Afrika, Tekken 6.
feeeew! teh ps3 is bettah!

Twice the power

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/beta276.gif

Wow, how'd I miss this thread... we've discussed this very topic over at the GamerCast Network forums a couple times and there are some things that need to be considered...

Yeah, most people "in the know" clearly admit the PS3 has more computational power. Period. The Cell and it's SPEs when properly utilized can run circles around a system like the 360 even with it's three cores. For some types of processing this difference is more pronounced than others.

Some of you have mentioned how the GPU on the 360 is more powerful than the GPU on the PS3 and give the very barebones description of that situation, yes, it's true. But what isn't clear is that the way the Cell + SPEs work, some of the workload that traditionally would be done via the GPU can be done by one (or more) of the SPEs and simply fed to the GPU. When you look at it that way, the benefits of the 360's GPU are countered and once people come to grips with the techniques and true power of the SPEs, expect this to continue to improve. Keep in mind that the original spec for the PS3 had the Cell processor doing the GPU duties as well. SPEs are very efficient at the type of calculations that a GPU would typically be doing.

Lastly, realize that the PS3 is starting to hold its own even on multiplatform titles (a public sign that third parties are coming to grips with coding on the PS3 and using the SPEs) while some of the 1st/2nd party titles are looking amazing even when compared to the best shown on the 360... as developers continue to gain skills, we can expect the "effective" general computing and graphical computing aspects of the PS3 to increase... by many accounts, the 360's relative familiarity for modern programmers would tend to indicate they're already pushing the hardware much closer to its potential than the admittedly more foreign PS3 which thrives mainly when it's parallel computing aspects are leveraged.

What I'm getting at there is people are saying the 360 has better games and that can definitely be countered over time... as of right now, the difference between a high-end 360 game and a high-end PS3 game is not very different at all... over time, as developers can harness the PS3's resources, I'm confident we'll see the PS3 pull away in terms of sheer abilities in terms of what it can pull off in-game both computationally and graphically... the same can't be said for the 360.

I've long said the Wii will peak first, the 360 2nd, the PS3 third... there will be a time when heads turn to see the PS3 for what it should've been at launch... a powerhouse. Sony's been directly involved with many of the hurdles they're dealing with by either doing the wrong thing or by doing nothing, but I think they'll recover in '08 to a VERY large degree... it's too early to say now, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Sony catch MS by Holiday '08. When you look at the timeline, the performance of the PS3 and 360 aren't too terribly dissimilar. I didn't get a 360 the entire first year because it was uncompelling to me... but since I got mine, things have really ramped up for it.

I think you're just BSing your way in advanced technical terms, and it's all really a lie :D. (jk)

Seriously though, I think the 360's technical design was a little smarter in that it's supposedly easier to develop for, and at least a couple of developers have said that the 360 is easier to develop for (and possibly more agree but won't say it publicly) although the PS3 does have more raw power then the 360. As you said, the PS3 will most likely peak last, but obtain a higher graphical quality level then the 360.

Also, see this article (http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1) for a very detailed look at the processing power of both the 360 and the PS3.

yeah the ps3 is teh bettah than teh xblockx, and heres why:

Its not from MS!
Twice the power
Hard Drive(which means that the developers have not to worry about the a crappy core version without one)
Blue Ray
No RROD!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!
Free online play(ok its not as good as live, BUT ITS FREEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!)
MGS, FFS, GT5, Killzone 3, Heavenly Sword , Assasins Creed, Driver 5, Afrika, Tekken 6.
feeeew! teh ps3 is bettah!

Please tell me that post was a joke.

ps3 doesn't really have any games, like in the song, and I quote

"we didn't like killzone 1, what made you think we want it's bastard son."

maybe if they came out with a revolutionary game more people would pick up ps3's.

ps3 doesn't really have any games,

Okay, by using the direct context of what you just said, you are completely and utterly wrong. If you insert a "killer" into that sentence, then yes, you're kinda sorta right. Give the PS3 another year though, and things will be different (*cough* MGS4, R&C*cough*).

R&C is only coming out this month...

Anyways... Insomniac said they got their engline working perfectly fine and without much trouble on the PS3, and that the PS3's architecture is somewhat similar to the PS2's, making it fimiliar...

I thought R&C was coming out next year, lol...

I know the PS3 isn't necessarily "insanely difficult" to program on, but it is supposedly harder then with the 360.

What was that last machine everybody complained about being difficult to program on... oh yeah... the Playstation 2. What a disaster that turned out to be after the initial batch of "blah" titles. Yeah, Sony=Doomed confirmed. ;)

Is PS3 the most powerful?

I like to think of the old saying, "if a tree falls and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Think about it...

I like to think that that tree does make a sound.

lol well i dunno. I think in terms of raw power it must go to the PS3.

But then i hear things about graphics card being better on the 360 etc and the PS3 has bottleneck yada so i dont think there is actually a definite anwser. Ask again next christmas and we may have an anwser. :D

WTF the ps3 is the best there is
:cool2::cool2::cool2:

ps3 = raw power
360=style=good library of games + An army of crazy fanboy's.
Wii= no power at all = games suck on it =console is shit

I kinda have to bring this to a little debate... PS3 may have more raw processing power... but it's alot more rigid about how it handles RAM.... which seeing how much difference RAM can make in how a PC game runs on the same machine, makes me wonder if that will be the bottleneck the PS3 has....

In the end, will they balance?

Oh and the Wii is dead wrong. It doesn't have as much power... but clearly it doesn't need it for what Nintendo had in mind. (And being so different means it's library is literally it's own... why I am so much on it being the best second system anyone can ever get.)

Ps3 = Doesnt Overheat, No FRICKEN GAMES, Games are crappy in overall, even graphics are not Next Gen

360= AWSOME games, preffered graphics, ring of fire is crap, awsome graphics

Wii= Awsome games, kiddie console somtimes, hard to move with the motion censored remotes when playing shooters

Sorry, but you are just wrong... at least about PS3, my friend. It looks damn nice to me... and has some nice titles... everything else, Ill back you... more or less.

ARGH, Another ****ing necro post.. Stop doing this!

you act like this was dead last night....

the only thing worse than necro posting are the guys that complain about it too longer after the thread's been resurrected. It's resurrected, ONE mention of necro posting is enough, then either discuss the topic or move along. It'll either be revived and thrive or wither away again. :tongue:

Wow, how'd I miss this thread... we've discussed this very topic over at the GamerCast Network forums a couple times and there are some things that need to be considered...

Yeah, most people "in the know" clearly admit the PS3 has more computational power. Period. The Cell and it's SPEs when properly utilized can run circles around a system like the 360 even with it's three cores. For some types of processing this difference is more pronounced than others.

Some of you have mentioned how the GPU on the 360 is more powerful than the GPU on the PS3 and give the very barebones description of that situation, yes, it's true. But what isn't clear is that the way the Cell + SPEs work, some of the workload that traditionally would be done via the GPU can be done by one (or more) of the SPEs and simply fed to the GPU. When you look at it that way, the benefits of the 360's GPU are countered and once people come to grips with the techniques and true power of the SPEs, expect this to continue to improve. Keep in mind that the original spec for the PS3 had the Cell processor doing the GPU duties as well. SPEs are very efficient at the type of calculations that a GPU would typically be doing.

Lastly, realize that the PS3 is starting to hold its own even on multiplatform titles (a public sign that third parties are coming to grips with coding on the PS3 and using the SPEs) while some of the 1st/2nd party titles are looking amazing even when compared to the best shown on the 360... as developers continue to gain skills, we can expect the "effective" general computing and graphical computing aspects of the PS3 to increase... by many accounts, the 360's relative familiarity for modern programmers would tend to indicate they're already pushing the hardware much closer to its potential than the admittedly more foreign PS3 which thrives mainly when it's parallel computing aspects are leveraged.

What I'm getting at there is people are saying the 360 has better games and that can definitely be countered over time... as of right now, the difference between a high-end 360 game and a high-end PS3 game is not very different at all... over time, as developers can harness the PS3's resources, I'm confident we'll see the PS3 pull away in terms of sheer abilities in terms of what it can pull off in-game both computationally and graphically... the same can't be said for the 360.

I've long said the Wii will peak first, the 360 2nd, the PS3 third... there will be a time when heads turn to see the PS3 for what it should've been at launch... a powerhouse. Sony's been directly involved with many of the hurdles they're dealing with by either doing the wrong thing or by doing nothing, but I think they'll recover in '08 to a VERY large degree... it's too early to say now, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see Sony catch MS by Holiday '08. When you look at the timeline, the performance of the PS3 and 360 aren't too terribly dissimilar. I didn't get a 360 the entire first year because it was uncompelling to me... but since I got mine, things have really ramped up for it.

that's what I was gonna say...beat me to it :lol:

believe me, this is probably the closest thing we are going to get in terms of an answer to this debate, until...well, one of the consoles pulls ahead of the others (not going to be the wii...:lol:)

Sony=Doomed confirmed.

that's what happens when you sell every console at a loss.... you were joking? :undecided:

The PS3 is not OMGWTFBBQ powerful as SOME would make it out to be sure it has the 7 SPE tho they are just difficult to code versions of the 360 threads yes the 360 has 6threads spread over 3 cores OMG in usable power the PS3 has a slight edge HOWEVER all the power in the world is worthless if you dont have numbers to crunch with it and the PS3 has EXACTLY 256MB of non-graphics ram the 360 on the other hand has 512MB of ram that can is split between the CPU and GPU so you can use as much or as little as you need

so PS3 wins in raw power... but 360 has flexibility.... holy shit it's pirates vs ninjas all over again!

so PS3 wins in raw power... but 360 has flexibility.... holy shit it's pirates vs ninjas all over again!

yah bit 360 is clearly ninjas. ninjas always win. pirates are sisies

The Xbox 360 has a far superior GPU than the PS3 does. On the flip side, the PS3's cell processor craps all over the 360's piece of crap tri core CPU. The reason Xbox 360 games do not look that much better or sometimes worse than the PS3 is because of the cell processor. It was initially built to also handle the 3D rendering for the PS3. The yields of its performance however fell well below expectations so the RSX was thrown into the PS3 at the very last minute. It's not a GPU specially built for a console. It's just an overclocked Geforce 7900 class GPU.

Where the GPU lacks in pure raw power, the cell processor makes up for. You can think of it as SLI in a sense since they both work together to render what is shown on the screen. The Xenon GPU in the 360 does all of the rendering. The one advantage that the 360 GPU does still hold over the RSX is it's ability to produce HDR & AA simutainlously. The ability to do this on the Nvidia end was not introduced until the 8 series. So software lighting is used in PS3 games to counter this issue.

GPU to GPU spec sheet

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Some vids of what the cell processor could do on it's OWN before the RSX was thrown in.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6yoz4iL8kQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6yoz4iL8kQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gV_95-rmYNo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gV_95-rmYNo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

At the end of the day, they both off set each other. The PS3 has a superior CPU & the Xbox 360 has a superior GPU. The PS3 has a superior media format but it runs slower while the 360 has a inferior media format but it runs faster which cuts the load times of games. Feature wise, the PS3 wins becuase of the built in WiFi, Bluetooth & Blu Ray playback.

-LatinLegacy

The Xbox 360 has a far superior GPU than the PS3 does. On the flip side, the PS3's cell processor craps all over the 360's piece of crap tri core CPU. The reason Xbox 360 games do not look that much better or sometimes worse than the PS3 is because of the cell processor. It was initially built to also handle the 3D rendering for the PS3. The yields of its performance however fell well below expectations so the RSX was thrown into the PS3 at the very last minute. It's not a GPU specially built for a console. It's just an overclocked Geforce 7900 class GPU.

Where the GPU lacks in pure raw power, the cell processor makes up for. You can think of it as SLI in a sense since they both work together to render what is shown on the screen. The Xenon GPU in the 360 does all of the rendering. The one advantage that the 360 GPU does still hold over the RSX is it's ability to produce HDR & AA simutainlously. The ability to do this on the Nvidia end was not introduced until the 8 series. So software lighting is used in PS3 games to counter this issue.

GPU to GPU spec sheet

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

Some vids of what the cell processor could do on it's OWN before the RSX was thrown in.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6yoz4iL8kQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6yoz4iL8kQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gV_95-rmYNo&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gV_95-rmYNo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

At the end of the day, they both off set each other. The PS3 has a superior CPU & the Xbox 360 has a superior GPU. The PS3 has a superior media format but it runs slower while the 360 has a inferior media format but it runs faster which cuts the load times of games. Feature wise, the PS3 wins becuase of the built in WiFi, Bluetooth & Blu Ray playback.

-LatinLegacy

THIS.... I think we can now roughly put this debate to bed.

ps3 doesn't really have any games, like in the song, and I quote

"we didn't like killzone 1, what made you think we want it's bastard son."

maybe if they came out with a revolutionary game more people would pick up ps3's.

Will people stop saying that the PS3 has no games? It''s getting so old, and its no where near true. Currently SOME of the good exclusive games we have: LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2, Uncharted 1, inFamous, Motor Storm 1 and 2.
We are going to be getting: Uncharted 2, MAG, God of War III, Heavy Rain, and GT 5. Those are just some of the exclusives. Get you facts straight, the PS3 has plenty of games, and has most of the same games 360 has (excluding the obvious exclusives).

Will people stop saying that the PS3 has no games? It''s getting so old, and its no where near true. Currently SOME of the good exclusive games we have: LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2, Uncharted 1, inFamous, Motor Storm 1 and 2.
We are going to be getting: Uncharted 2, MAG, God of War III, Heavy Rain, and GT 5. Those are just some of the exclusives. Get you facts straight, the PS3 has plenty of games, and has most of the same games 360 has (excluding the obvious exclusives).

No WONDER I want the system! (EVERY system I have people talk about like this, and it's plain not true.... why not add the last one?)

LatinLegacy pretty much just won the thread. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Also, I wanna punt anyone else who says "PS3 has no good games". If it were still early 2007, youd be right, but thankfully the gaming industry is one of progression and rapid change.