Login






Respected Sites

 
ATI Says PS3 Is 'Unrefined' >
2005/12/25 20:23:49: Posted by DM
In a recent interview in Edge magazine, Richard Huddy, European Developers Relations Manager for ATI, spoke a bit about the technical aspects of the Xbox360. He also mentioned the PS3 -- basically saying that the unit had serious power but the power is "brute force" power. The Xbox360 was much more "refined," he said. "A pretty powerful piece of hardware, but just not elegant." Click read more to read it for yourself.

How do you think your work on the 360 measures up to PS3?

I take a fairly robust view on this. The Xbox 360 GPU is designed to be a console GPU - that's what we set out to produce when we started the collaboration with Microsoft; let's build a really powerful, really flexible kind of general purpose GPU which doesn't have performance cliffs where if you do certain things suddenly the performance crashes down by a factor of two or something like that; let's have things pretty predictable and easy to work with, and let's generate about the best performance that we can- so we went for things like the unified shaders and so on. The PS3 has been designed in a quite different way because of the way the process worked. We sat down with Microsoft and said: 'This is what we think we can build', and they said: 'Yes, but what about...?' And they started picking holes in our design, so we came up with a collaborative design. They didn't put a spec in front of us and say: 'How much for this?' That definitely wasn't the dialogue - in fact that would make it more of a monologue; it would be kind of bidding on prices and so on. Instead what we have is a very collaborative design.


With the PS3 my understanding of what happened is that they had three different internal hardware solutions - at one point, for example, as I understand it there was a proposal to use multiple Cell processors just to handle the graphics. And towards the end of the process, as the story goes, they took a look at the three internal tenders and decided than none of them would actually do; none of them would deliver the kind of performance and quality that games programmers could use and would make for a good cost-effective console, so they had to go out and shop around. And one of the places they shopped was Nvidia, and what Nvidia did was say: 'Well, you've got this relatively short timeframe, you've got roughly this kind of budget, I'll tell you what we'll do: we'll do you a good price on what is essentially the 7800GTX'. So that's a PC chip, and if you look at the architecture of the two consoles you can see we've done bizarre things that they haven't. We've built ten megabytes of dedicated ED RAM which knows how to antialias and so on, because that's a specific way of addressing a console's problem. It's bizarre in a PC sense but a special skill for a console builder. Whereas the PS3 has 256 meg of system memory and 256 meg of graphics memory it communicates through what is effectively a PCI express bus. It uses GDDR3 fast memory, it's essentially a PC graphics design bolted on to a Cell processor and 256 meg of fast system memory...

You make it sound so unrefined!

[Laughs.] Well, yeah, but the tragedy is that it is unrefined. There's a lot brute force in there - I'd be the last person to admit it, but the truth is that the 7800GTX is a pretty powerful piece of hardware, but it's not very elegant, it hasn't got the kind of: 'Well, how do we design this to be the best possible console we can build for this money?' Instead it's been put together at the end of quite a complicated process. We have two very different design processes. If Microsoft had come to us and said: 'All right, what are we going to do about this graphics chip, then? Let's sign the contract and let's go', but then we'd got two thirds through and they'd said: 'Look, you guys aren't going to deliver - now what are you going to do?' and then walked away from us, they would have ended up with a design very much like the PS3 in some essential characteristics - it would have had to use bought-in components. And our GPUs instead are custom-designed components, and that's one of the fundamental reasons why I think Xbox 360 technology is likely to outperform PlayStation 3 technology by a pretty healthy margin in the long run.

So how about this one: can those E3 PS3 demos be achieved on Xbox 360?

Well, why not take another combative line here? I think it's more likely that they can be realised on an Xbox 360 than they can be on a PS3. Those things are movies generated using whatever DCC software the houses had in mind. The Epic demo was running on a PC, and it was done using an early 7800 in SLI mode, so that was a high-end PC demo, but the movies were generated as movies and dressed up as: 'This is what you can expect from a PS3', but that's probably overstating what the PS3 can do a little bit. Indeed, it's well beyond what we expect the PS3 to be able to do. So I guess we'll just have to see what happens..."

Labeled With  sony playstation 3 ati xbox360

Comments [113]  | Rate this article:  | Avg. rating of 6.1

Delicious Technorati Digg Blinklist Furl Reddit Newsfine Fark Simpy Spurl Yahoomyweb


Related News:
 Yet Another PS3 Firmware Update 2.80
 Four PS3 Motion Wands Can Be Used At Once
 Sony Responds To Activision's 'No Ps3' Comments
 Activision Says 'We Might Have To Stop Supporting Sony'
 The Secret Of The Xi PSN HOME Spaces Have Been Revealed
 Michael Pachter Regrets Calling PSP GO A 'Rip Off'



Comments

Written by AIrbrushkid (1) on 2005/12/26

What a joke. This from the famous paper launch company that even change there warranty on there own cards to 1 year. Why, because they know there product is faulty low quality. The 360 is just a high PC nothing better. Just look it's in a fancy Micro ATX case, witha motherboard, cpu, ram and gpu, harddrive and even usb!
Written by hardwood2001 (49) on 2005/12/26

"So how about this one: can those E3 PS3 demos be achieved on Xbox 360?

Well, why not take another combative line here? I think it's more likely that they can be realised on an Xbox 360 than they can be on a PS3."

hardwood2001: That sounds right to me, this is what every TECH websites has been saying with the exception of the first few TECH websites, who actually believed in sony specs at first.

hey it say "Click read more to read it for yourself." but i don't see it anywhere!

Written by storm (47) on 2005/12/26

"The 360 is just a high PC nothing better. Just look it's in a fancy Micro ATX case, witha motherboard, cpu, ram and gpu, harddrive and even usb!"

The PS3 has all of those too... don't fool yourself into thinking any game system isn't a pc. Sony even wants people to believe it is more of a pc than a game system. Not to mention, the PS3 will have an OS and flash memory slots.
Written by Aaron (1) on 2005/12/26

Just a short comment i wanted to add, i think the X Box 360 came out to early. They got it out befor x mas for more profits and people buying them for people for gifts. But the PS3 they're taking time with. This is only my opinion, maybe PS3 started a little late, but whatever, later.
Written by umm (1) on 2005/12/26

yeah right, they arent taking theyre time, they were late. dont you think Sony would have liked to come out with the PS3 before the new xbox. They definately would have wanted to.
Written by A.J. (1) on 2005/12/26

the 360 has been indesign for a little more than 3 years.A console takes 2 and a half to make most of the time. the ps3 has taken about 2.microsoft started about 2 years after the xbox. sony started really doing stuff not just specks on its hardware to be built in the future 3 and a half years after.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/26

*Edit: Flaming Removed*
Written by enemyone (1) on 2005/12/27

What a joke, *ATI Guy* "Well our product is in the Xbox 360 so its better becasue the flux compositor on ours works better than any other one which makes the Nvidia one undeveloped" yes becasue hes not going to be biased in any way towards his companys product. Then half you idiots buy it, Has he messed around with the PS3? NOPE so STFU
Written by someone (1) on 2005/12/27

the 360 is not a high end PC, there are completely different approaches to programming for the PC and a console and you totally missed his point. he was saying that programmers can take advantage of the 360's full capabilities in a predictable and stable manner.

I doubt either console is capable of producing the graphics of the PS3 movie demos in an actual game and unless I see something CLOSE to those demos at E3 I will assume Sony have blown it.
Written by Walshicus (2) on 2005/12/27

gokusgrill; of course ATi will promote their own hardware - that's a given. What's also given is that if you actually DO look at the solution nVidia offers for the PS3, you can see for yourself that it's an unwieldy piece of kit for a fixed-function console.

With the PS3, Sony created a processor first and then tried to fit a game system paradigm around it - something which will be seen to fail in the long run as fully threaded Xenon runs rings around Cell's measly single PPC and 7 underspecced PPEs, and shunts graphical data gigabytes faster than the Cell's bus could ever dream of...
Written by Orlik (1) on 2005/12/27

Walshicus

Totally what I was going to say in a way.

Anyway. I agree with what he said. Half of you are just console bashers anyway. However I don't think it will matter which console you will choose. I chose the XBOX 360. You can choose the PS3 for all I care. Just leave me alone fanboys.
Written by Scuba (1) on 2005/12/27

This really is a joke.How much more of a slant do you want on it. I think ATI should shut their mouth since they probablly have no idea what they're about to compete with. If you look at the spec sheets the PS3's processor is twice that of the 360, and the video card is an entirely new animal. So for this cracka to run his mouth is just wrong. In the beginning, from a graphical stand point, the games will look similar since the developers won't be able to use the full capabilities of both systems. However in the end I believe the PS3 will have an edge because games will look more realistic and run smoother due to the Cell processor being twice that of the 360. The gpu's are pretty much neck and neck so when it comes down to the wire it'll be the CPU that'll make a difference, and that is where the PS3 will outperform.
Written by WinterWrath (2) on 2005/12/27

I think you may be right about the power of the cell; however, if it is true that the cpu and gpu are seperated by a pci bus then it unfortunatly true that all the cpu will have due is continously swap out memory from system memory to gpu memory. That will end up being what the cpu is doing 90 % of the time. If they had gone with another approach like sharing memory and not bottlenecking it with a bus. Then maybe "the PS3 will have an edge because..." I don't think its the cpu that will make the difference. Effective use of memory and cpu cycles will go a long way.
Written by lonescourge (1) on 2005/12/27

*Edit: Flaming Removed*
Written by WinterWrath (2) on 2005/12/27

I would not argue that either is "better" that said a bottlneck between the cpu and the gpu sounds like a serious design flaw.

I don't get all the hpye about the hidef drive lets face it dvds are the prefered form of content distibution... oh no wait that would be the intenet. I don't think the hidef drive transition from dvd to hidef dvd will be as quick as the transition from cd to dvd was. I don't see how its a big deal and I am not craving a hidef dvd drive - there is no content available and developers are used to developing games to fit on the 7GB dvd drives. They could always add additional functionality via a download if they could not fit all the maps on a drive.

I was not sure which console to get but I think your right lonescourge I will get the xbox 1.5 its better than the ps2 and the ps3 put together. Your right about the specs I think xbox 1.5 it is then.
Written by jayhui (1) on 2005/12/27

I don't about the PS 3 but the games on Xbox360 is terrible now. Is the game that counts.
Written by noyouretheidiot (1) on 2005/12/27

"you guys are idiots. you fall for the crap microsoft and ATI are saying."

Do you think that Sony isn't doing the exact same thing? What makes you think that Sony isn't feeding us crap too? We should take any comments from either side with a grain of salt, because they are all obviously biased.
Written by Anonymous (6) on 2005/12/27

I think you guys should stop debating on something what those guys from "ATI or MS" were saying. Every person is rooted for their home teams. In a few months, Sony with come out with their ps3. We will then know which is better. It's better to wait then to shop right now.
Written by The Pessimist (1) on 2005/12/28

I don't think anyone here will be getting a PS3 anytime soon, unless Sony has decided to go with what they've got. And if they do that, then all we'll have is a PS2.5 sometime around May. Hopefully, they've corrected what was wrong, and redesigned the cooling features. Then we'll have a true PS3 sometime in Dec.
Written by Guest (3) on 2005/12/28

Sony isn't taking their time, they are simply trying to milk the PS2 and PSP. If some of you are so droned out that you can't see the problems with the PS3 and sony in general, then just stay in your comfort zone. Check around some game developer sites, they say the exact same thing about the PS3 that this guy is saying. If you want to wait 2 more years to see the next-gen, then be my guest. In 2 years MS will be 2 years closer to putting out something that will nail the coffin shut on sony. That is if the 360 doesn't go ahead do just that.It will be the same this generation as it was last sony will want as much or more for a lower quality product. And some of you idiots will fall for it.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/28

*Edit: Flaming Removed*
Written by Walshicus (2) on 2005/12/28

Gokusgrill; most of us have been fed up with the horse manure that we've been fed from Sony over the years. The emotion engine was a flop, and the cell is little better. Please, if you'd like to educate us how you expect the PS3 with its absurdly low internal bandwidth to outperform the 360 in real world gaming situations then be my guest. As it is, you are clearly the one who is in denial that your favourite Jap-crap manufacturer has yet again proved itself incapable of designing decent gaming systems.

Tell me, did you think the Killzone 2 footage was real?
Written by Rokku (5) on 2005/12/28

Well I know hardware and completed uni and you should know that the raw cell specs don't mean squat in real world applications. The problem is that even though the cell has about twice the speed of the 360 CPU cores, it actually doesn't have as much functionality. The only "real" processor is the single PPC in the cell and the 7 others are just helper cores that can only do a really limited set of actions. E.g. Out of a whole game engine only some A.I. and physics cases would use the SPUs, while the PPC would be doing most of the work. Something like 20% of the work is done on the helper cores while 80% done on the single PPC.

The 360 on the other hand, while only having 3 cores instead of 8, can actually be fully squeezed out in every area of development as each core is identical and more powerful than the single PPC, and doesn't have any bullshit cores that honestly can't be used for many applications.

So looking at the numbers, the 360 has three 3ghz cores running full spec in any part of a 3D engine, compared to most PS3 games almost solely relying on the single PPC for most of the grunt work, and only pass off the A.I or pathfinding to the 7 other cores. Effectively wasting most of the "power" of the cell processor.
Written by bmurda (1) on 2005/12/28

ok for all the techies, it is simple as this the same games published for xbox 360, will be published for ps3.( give or take a few) the only difference is ps3 will drop in japan in spring if on time. U.S. 6 months later.if on time. The cost for it rumors from 300 to 500. by then xbox 360 will have been on the market for a year under its belt...ok average life span of a console is 4 to 5 yrs.in year 2 of ps3 you honestly believe the games on the ps3 will be better than the games on xbox360.i feel they will be neck and neck. and to prove that its about games and not the system.

ps2 nearly 4 to 1 the sales to xbox consoles halo 2 sold a record setting 250 million.so you can go argue over and over bout the specs, the demo, hd dvd, when it comes down to it you buy video games consoles to play video games. everything esle is extra... and to be real some people reading this might not make it to see what ever ps3 has to offer.

final words to each its own.....

Written by Oen on 2005/12/28

Holy shit. Lots of commenting. You guys should register, then you can post on the forums too. These posts would count towards you winning a contest when the next one comes up. Since normally it is "You need X numbers of posts within X number of days of the contest winning."

Just a suggestion though. smile.gif

Also whenever you leave a comment it will be marked as yours for sure. wink.gif
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/28

rokku - obviously you dont know anything about the cell. why? because you dont even know the proper Ghz your micromoney runs off of. its 3.2ghz not 3ghz. with that out i will say what the cell is. this is the cell.

8 IDENTICAL cores running at 3.8ghz. they are not different or weaker in anyway...thats it. the one drawback to the cell would be that it only has half the cache that the 360 cores have being at 512k.
Written by Rokku (5) on 2005/12/28

How can you argue over accuracy when you don't even know the fundamentals of the CELL?! It actually has 9 cores in the processor, 1 PPU, and 8 SPU, but when actually used it disables one of the SPUs as a backup incase another one fries.

Now lets look at the cores themselves the PPU is the actual "real Processor" as its called the Power Processor Control (sometimes PCP as well) which has the most transistors and can do the most general computations. The 7 other SPUs only have a very limited instruction set that can only perform certain calculations.

Now look at a developers perspective, the only part of the cell where most of the work can be done is on the PPU which actually has the complexity to compute all those general functions a game has. While the SPCs are engineered to be really good at floating point operations, which aren't that useful in games at all.





Now lets look at the 360, it has 3 cores that each are much faster than the PPC (developers already benchmarked and commented this). This means that most games have more "USEFUL" power from the 360 CPU than the CELL.

Heres a simple diagram to help you understand:

PPC much slower than a single 360 core

SPUs very limited and useful for only floating point operations.

REAL WORLD SITUATION:

Developer PS3 CELL:

90% game uses 1 x PPC

10% game uses 7 x SPUs

Developer 360 CPU:

100% game uses 3 x CPU cores

Now I'm not going into the whole future multi threading debate about game design. This is just a description of the actual usefulness of the CELL and 360 Cores as the stand RIGHT NOW.
Written by Spark (1) on 2005/12/29

I am having a good time playing my 360 and watching the people that actually know what they are talking about own these Sony fanboys...Like Rokku just did.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/29

I guess we really cant change each others minds anyway. were all going to think were right until we see what happens.
Written by Oen on 2005/12/29

Um.. unfortunately if what he is saying is right, and 360 is more powerful, there is no "right and wrong". Numbers don't lie, they aren't an opinion, they are a fact.
Written by Rat (1) on 2005/12/29

This reminds of PS2 vs. Dreamcast. How PS2's emotion engine was gonna squash SEGA. Press hyped it. Everyone agreed. Then everyone bitched about PS2 jaggies and how hard it was to develop games for it. Yet, first generation titles on DC like Soul Caliber looked better. Then everyone was saying the DC was tapped out. It wouldn't be able to achieve(graphically) more than it already has. B.S. Beware of Sonys marketing. They are doing it again. Making great claims to power. And don't connect the PS3 to your home network. It probably has a rootkit virus to destroy Windows. Thank god for OSX. Actually forget 360 too. M$ is evil. really. Buy a Bike.
Written by Kyto (1) on 2005/12/29

In all honesty.....who cares??

I mean both consoles are going to have incredible visuals the likes of which the gaming market has never seen, but I could care less about the visuals. The Next-Gen of gaming is all about software, the company with the better software is the better company and right now I'm leaning towards sony...but microsoft is showing some progress too.

I think its just pathetic to bash and insult one another about a consoles visuals, play the games, enjoy them, and shut up about who has the better console. Both the PS3 and the 360 will have its pros and cons just like the current consoles.
Written by WONDERBOY (1) on 2005/12/30

This is so stupid. There are those who will buy the Xbox and those that will buy the PS3. All this crap about bandwidth and processor junk doesn't mean a damn thing. Both of these things are super powerful and both will look amazing. I have both the PS2 and original Xbox, I love 'em both. I'm sure whichever one that you decide to buy will be great.

That being said, I will be one of the many waiting for the PS3. I was one of the dorks that waited outside Best Buy on an early Sunday morning to get my PS2 and I plan on doing the same again for my PS3. Sony just has its $h1t together when it comes to getting developers and making great games themselves. Also the backwards compatability is HUGE for me. I didn't spend all this money on games only to have only the really popular ones work for me. Sorry Bill Gates but thats a load of crap. But my friend does have a 360 so I'm sure I'll get to play 'em both :).
Written by sgt manji (2) on 2005/12/30

Wonderboy: "I didn't spend all this money on games only to have only the really popular ones work for me. Sorry Bill Gates but thats a load of crap. But my friend does have a 360 so I'm sure I'll get to play 'em both :)."

Actually, Sony are also having problems with back compatability with the PS3, if you haven't already heard ... ;)
Written by GOD OF GAMES (1) on 2005/12/30

ATI makes the best graphics cards on the market period. Why do you think Nvidia is better agian? They have been trailing ATI since ATI came out. And thats the main point he was making. The ATI graphics card in the 360 has 10 mb of imbedded nd ram BUILT ON THE CARD. The ps3 card is basically a 7800 GTX which doesn't have built in memory, so now your using more memory. "it's essentially a PC graphics design bolted on to a Cell processor and 256 meg of fast system memory" there are the facts right in front of you. Its already available to computers now.
Written by mykie (16) on 2005/12/30

Guys! Guys!

Whatabout Nintendo?

*runs*
Written by mo (1) on 2005/12/30

People complain that the Xbox360 is just a high end PC, why? because it has a CPU, GPU and Hard Drive???

Well as soon as you idiots figure out how to render graphics without those things please let us know, I for one would be very interested.

Also the XBox360 ATI GPU uses technology that IS NOT AVAILABLE anywhere else! so remember that when you see your 7800GT huffing and puffing in your precious PS3

Also, I for one am really happy Sony released those prerendered movies at E3 because all you fanboys are going to feel just as stupid as SOny when the games come out and look and feel nothing like those videos. Infact Sony shold save those videos for E3 when the unveil the PS4 because thats probably when we will see graphics like that redered in real time, in game.

Written by Burninator (2) on 2005/12/30

Mo you are a stupid person. The ATI X360 gpu is a WATERED DOWN X1800XL. The RSX GPU is an almost identical 7800gtx gpu. maybe since you console fanboys dont know anything about graphics cards, the 7800gtx BLOWS AWAY the x1800xl in any benchmark tests. not to mention that ATI stripped away the onboard VRAM with 10mb of DRAM which they hype up themselves. and its 7800gtx, not 7800gt there is a difference.
Written by 40s (1) on 2005/12/30

The ATI (360) has 48 pipelines, the RSX (Sony)has 24.

Which one do you think is faster?

The processor doesn't mean sh*t when it comes to graphics. If you're talking physics and multimedia then yeah, the cell would best almost anything out. But when it comes to graphics it's all about the video card, and ATI's video card has better stats than Nvidia's's pure and simple.

So unless Nvidia comes out with something to completely different form the chip they've been touting for the PS3, the Xbox360 will be able to out perform the PS3 graphically.

The PS3's Nvidia simple can't compete with ATI's new unified shader tech.
Written by vash180 (2) on 2005/12/30

What i dont understand is this guy is basically the opposition of both nVidia and sony so how the hell does he know about the gpu to procssesor relationship for the playstation when everyone else doesnt. Hmm also before any one starts bombing on sony when was the last time sony ever put out a console that they didnt optomise for gaming. One of the reason some playstation 2 have reached near Xbox levels (God of War, the new Splinter Cell) is because its GPU was gming specific while the old Xbox had a general GPU like most computers. Anyway im just saying wait till the PS3 comes out with sime games then start making comparisons. Its hard to tell which fighter is ganna win when one of the fighters is absent.

sorry typos
Written by Moe -miceter (1) on 2005/12/30

*Edit: Flaming Removed*
Written by Blue dragon (1) on 2005/12/30

*Edit: Flaming Removed*
Written by vash180 (2) on 2005/12/30

to the two PS3 players above. im guessing you two have 360's already right and im also guessing your still on vacation right. So instead of coming here and ragging on peple who have to wait months before they can even see their wanted system working in public and even longer to touch it why dont you go play your games and leave us the hell alone. why is it that in every article i find about PS3 somone has to start a fleme war. This goes for both sides. Everyone has there own reasons for buying either of the three next gen systems lets leave it at that. im tired of having to scroll through flame war deivel before i can find an actualy well thought out comment

Peace (^_^)v
Written by Burninator (2) on 2005/12/30

*Edit: Flaming Removed*
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/30

40's you seem to have your facts wrong. "The ATI (360) has 48 pipelines, the RSX (Sony)has 24." this is not true, this is what it is....nvidia = 24 pixel piplines/ 32 vertex shaders. ati = 16 pixel piplines/ 48 vertex shaders. the companies argue over which one is better to put higher but obviously you can check on any benchmark and the nvidia always wins . YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THAT, SORRY ITS TRUE.
Written by lunatech (1) on 2005/12/30

I'm an owner of the XBOX 360 and I have to say the graphics are damn sexy. When the PS3 comes out I will be an owner of that as well (to me there is no console war - only games!).

We can talk about theories all we want but so far the XBOX 360 is pretty concrete. It's with the consumers, they've given their opinions - some judgements can be made.

On the contrary though, the PS3 still seems like a black box. There are some contradictions regarding what Sony "states" and what they actually "do" and for the most part, Sony has a long history of embellishing their specifications. Microsoft is in no way a saint. But to their credit, they have released their console and placed their bet. People will rage on how they love or hate the console because it's tangible to the consumer.

Till the PS3 arrives, all I have to say about Sony is "Talk is cheap."
Written by fazyninja (2) on 2005/12/30

i have to agree with the xbox 360 fanboys, and i think ati are not being one sided b/c i beleive it to be true and if its not true than nvidia can come back and tell us their story, personaly from just reading the comments read here i have heard enough to say that i am happy with my xbox 360 and confident that it can out preform ps3 in most areas.
Written by Oen on 2005/12/30

Alright simple overview of rules... ALL CAPS, calling each other idiots, f***ers, etc... will result in "*Edit: Flaming Removed*".

Lets keep it clean and mature, I won't tolerate childish name calling. Keep the posts relevant and back it up with proof, otherwise don't waste people's time with flaming each other.
Written by todzilla (1) on 2005/12/30

for all of those saying just be gamers and pick what system you want it goes alot deeper than that. let me ask you one question? can your ps2 play blue discs or not? after 5 years how can 1 ps2 play blue discs and the other not? you may be asking what my point is. it is all a point of sony trying to screw over the masses. if you don't belive me then google up drm. the one thing i don not like about the ps3 is that i cannot trade in a game for some bucks off of a new game or even buy a pre-played game, or for that matter borrow a game that my friend will let me play even one night. sony is playin' people for a bunch a fools, but isn't america full of a bunch of fools (capitilism). just be aware of rootkit and drm, and beware of the future of sony. the second you plug in ps3 online (yeah right) some sony rep might be stalking your every move. so if you wanna sat M$ then say $ony. and be informed because our future depends on it.
Written by Terra (1) on 2005/12/30

"Ooohhh, my console is the most powerful... yeah!!!"

Enough already! Just grow up and enjoy the games, regardless of platform.

Leave the fanboyism behind.
Written by I can't tell you that (1) on 2005/12/30

So you think the xblownoutofallpoportion360 is better then the ps3, then you have made a bad mistake.

4months ps3 will be out, take it from someone in the know who's actually tested a ps3 kit.

1 Quick comment, the spu's, the usage varies.

Breakdown

Ai, can be 10-30%

Weather calcs 10%

It actually works very well, Also considering the 360 is 48 pipelines dosent amount to much.

Can't say much more except, See with your own eyes!



Ok, I'm gonna say this now!

Do you think the rsx is 24pipes.

How many months in a year + 24 and you have the correct number!

And the images/videos you say in e3 05 are very close to what you'll be seeing in realtime.
Written by Red (1) on 2005/12/30

I put my money on PS3.
Written by STEEL (1) on 2005/12/30

I may not be a techy but I agree with anyone who says that sony is throwin out a bunch of bull wit the graphics...and oh yea i forgot to mention im a Nfan but i still find time to enjoy xbox live and ps2, its about the games and no more, also for the future dont mention the revolution yet because specs arent clear sooooooooooo its a waste of time to argue and criticize on something that may not exist iight peace :)
Written by Bomberman (1) on 2005/12/30

...i think ill just a buy a pc and revo. :P bloody fanboys ruin every topic. nothing ever looks as good as companies tell you its going to. havent you all learned that by now. A system can be the most powerful on teh planet, but unless its easy to program for and utilise, whats the point? dont count your pipelines b4 they hatch.
Written by josh (4) on 2005/12/30

The Kill Zone footage was real. It was running on alpha kits at 5 frames per second. Then it was accelerated to 60 fps for demo purposes. This has been confirmed. Developers from EA, Sega, Konami, Capcom, and Epic have all stated the PS3 has more raw horsepower. Most predict within 2 years we will see a noticable performance edge in the favor of Sony. Do some research you x-box homers!

Let's remember the PS3 main processor is hardware dual threaded...the xbox's cores are "hyper-threaded". Hardware threads are 2x more efficent than software threading. Hence the ps3's main core is significantly more powerful than any of the xbox's.
Written by bluebrad1974 on 2005/12/30

For me it is truly hard to understand how someone that is used to the PS2, couldn't be totally amazed by the 360. I used to play Xbox(which is superior to the PS2) and the 360 amazed me.
Written by Doug (1) on 2005/12/30

For anyone who still believes the killzone video was real is a JOKE aka JO--
Written by leo (1) on 2005/12/31

i really think sony is going to take it.im not bashing xbox or anything its just that i played the 360 and im not really impressed.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/31

yea i went over my friends house tonight and said. "thats dead or alive 4......thats it? MOST of the games coming out for it now look like a regular xbox + 10-20% more power, thats all. im sure they will learn to utalize the console more like with every generation but by that time...hi PS3!!
Written by ace (6) on 2005/12/31

after playing cod2 on the 360 I don't see what the big deal is. this is supposed to be the best game out as of right now, and in all honesty i was not impressed in the least. the upcoming games don't look much better either, with the exception of gears of war. gears of war looks absolutely amazing, hell 360 might even be worth it for just that game. but i don't like how they changed my xbox controller around. it just feels akward when you put it in your hands with your fingers over all 4 shoulder buttons/triggers. the wireless is a mistake too, it runs on the same frequency as all our phones and our wireless network, so how the hell am i supposed to play live with a wireless system?

microsoft needs to start selling more systems otherwise they won't have a big enough lead when sony releases the ps3 and runs away with the entire market AGAIN.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/31

for both consoles one major factor is whether you have an HDTV or not. the box would have looked a little better playing dead or alive 4 on HD but not much more of a change. if i wanted either system i would invest in a HDTV or else its not worth it for either. maybe later when they have some raw textures to brag about instead of screen resolution and fps.
Written by sgt manji (2) on 2005/12/31

ace, all the launch games are only using one processor, so stfu, developers need to time to learn how to use the system, Did you see the diff between halo 1 and 2? It takes time. The ps2 had crap gfx at first, now look at

Shadow of the Colossus..

It takes time damn it. And all the 360 launch games were rushed, no doubt about that.
Written by Rokku (5) on 2005/12/31

Just to enter the debate about the RSX (PS3) and Xenon (360) GPUs, the Xenon IS really a unique graphics solution that’s using 2 features that blow the RSX away.

All information about the RSX points to the fact that it is just a slightly modified 7800. In fact, when they were doing those E3 demos they were using an SLI of 2 6800s and were quoted as saying that this will be the roughly the power of the RSX when its completed.

Well since the 7800 is twice as fast as a 6800, it is obvious that they're basically using the same design. Also looking at the specs released, they basically talk about features that already exist in PC cards except for the fact that they have some special bus designed to transfer data to the CELL.

Now lets look at the Xenon, ATI have included 2 features, the 10MB ED Ram, and unified shaders.



10MB ED Ram pretty much means that anti-aliasing is free causing no fps hits at all. So if you're playing 1024 x 768 and you get 60 fps, with 4 x AA at same res you'll still get 60 fps, no loss whatsoever!

Unified shaders are really the big thing about the GPU. With all GPUs on the market today from both ATI and Nvidia, when they say they have a number of pipelines (eg 24) they are really saying that they have 2 pipelines hard coded for either pixel shading or vertex shading.

For example a 24 pipeline might have 8 vertex shaders and 16 pixel shaders. The Problem with this is that if a certain scene on the screen is pixel shader heavy the GPU is flogging the 16 pixel pipeline to render that scene while the 8 vertex pipeline are just sitting around doing nothing.



Now with unified shaders the Xenon actually has a 48 shader unified pipeline that can act as a vertex pipe or pixel pipe at any time. This means that 100% of power is being used ALL the time for each scene displayed. So that if you have a geometry heavy (heaps of polygons) scene, it will turn some or all the pipelines into vertex shaders to handle that load, if the next scene is a pixel heavy scene (heaps of bump maps, specular maps) they'll turn into pixel pipelines.

Summary of the two GPUs:

RSX – 6 vertex pipeline, 18 pixel pipeline

Xenon – 48 unified pipeline.

Pixel heavy Scene

RSX – 18 pipelines processing the scene

Xenon – 48 pipelines processing the scene

Geometry heavy scene

RSX – 6 pipelines processing the scene

Xenon – 48 pipelines processing the scene.

Not only that but if you added Anti Aliasing the RSX would be even slower as it has to process the AA as well as the scene internally.
Written by xbox 360 and PS3 but Nintendo revoultion (1) on 2005/12/31

first you guys need to shut up as both of the consoles are very powerful pieces of hardware but by next year PC will own all of the console and also don't forget the nintendo revoultion which looks to kick ass with its controller
Written by Super Dante (1) on 2005/12/31

*Edited: Posting the same thing 3 times is not necessary and wasting my time and everyone else's. Removed.*
Written by ole school gamer (20) on 2005/12/31

*Edited: You love the PS3 we understand."
Written by TOMNGAI (1) on 2005/12/31

This is just target toward whoever was speaking of halo 2 sales.

When there was like 25 million xboxs sold worldwide whatever, why would halo 2 sell 250 million. I'll tell you why, because it didnt.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/31

on to more important things. as we talked about earlier, the 360 has a graphics card which is identical to the X1800XL. the PS3 has the 7800 GTX. match those cards up and you will find that 7800 GTX has 20-30% more rendering power.

also what do people think about 360 making its system ram and graphics ram the sam 512 chip while PS3 make 256 system 256 graphics. i would think one 512 chip would not be accessed as efficiently as both system and graphics are storing and drawing from one module. imagine two people running into one doorway. they can when they both small but when they grow up there will be trouble. same thing for xbox, once that put a demand on that with two "bigger" people you will see backup issues limiting the system

*Edited, flaming (or trying at least): i hate people that our that stupid please dont let him post again. ("our" is not the same as "are", this makes you look stupid which kind of kills your whole "he is stupid" debate.)*
Written by optaviusx on 2005/12/31

gokusgrill you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the slightest...You do know that the xbox 360's memory bandwidth is 5 times that of the ps3's memory bandwidth right? Search any website to find out the ps3's memory bandwidth and the 360's bandwidth you'll see the 360's is 5 times the ps3 in terms of memory bandwidth

Also 10MB of edram has never before been done on a gpu and it allows the 360 to antialias up to 4x at NO performance hit something never before done on a videocard.

The 360's gpu is even more powerful than ati's unreleased r580 product line. The 360's gpu technology wont be seen till ati's r600... Check the below link.

[link removed]OT beat a video card with a unified shader. Alot of people here are just throwing things out without knowing what they are talking about the 360 is more powerful IF ANY OF YOU KNOW A THING ABOUT COMPUTERS technology or just videocards for that matter.



360 gpu is more properly compared to ati's unreleased r600. Check below link. Not even the unreleased r580 will have its technology. 48 pipelines....

[link removed]k

[link removed]

Its obvious nobody here knows the power of a unified shader architecture much less knowing anything about computers to begin with.... It hurts alot of fanboys out there, but the fact is the 360 has new more powerful technology and the ps3's biggest advatage is its blu ray drive. That is the only clear cut huge advantage the ps3 has other than that the 360 is more powerful and I have facts and enough knowledge regarding the technology of both because I've personally been developing for both consoles. The cell processor is amazing when it comes to multi tasking, but when it comes to the type of power developers need the 360's cpu outperforms the cell in the ps3.

Don't get me wrong, both consoles wont be disappointments, they are powerful in their own right, but the ps3 has been tremendously overated and the 360 IMMENSELY underrated. In terms of efficient useful power required for game development the 360 is the clear winner.
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2005/12/31

optaviusx-------

"I have facts and enough knowledge regarding the technology of both because I've personally been developing for both consoles."

omg guys how could you even begin to beleive that. who the hell would be developing for both companies. that statment shows you are lying thus nullifies any other statement given.

if you want to try to act smart and lie then dont make mistakes so obvious as that

o as for the memory bandwidth. both graphics card run at 22.4 GB/s. do you HONESTLY thin nvidia doesnt know what their doing. the proof is how many times has nvidia toped over ati in the last year? what you say...all? yup nvidia has been toping ati and will continue to do so. you ARE NOT smarter then the entire nvidia corperation and i doubt they would make such a simple mistake.

Written by optaviusx on 2005/12/31

Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody is developing for both consoles??? Are you seriously naive enough to believe that developers aren't making multi-platform titles for both the ps3 and 360?? You've just lost credibility. What am I talking about you never had any to begin with as you are talking about things you know nothing about. The 360's TOTAL system memory bandwidth is 278.4GB/s the ps3's TOTAL system memory bandwidth is 48GB/s. Look around the internet kid these facts have been up for ages.

I'll do something you can't do admit the facts. Nvidia has been topping ati for awhile since the release of the 7800, but that will change with ati's r580 line. The r520 was a huge hit and miss for ati which could probably be attributed to the fact that ati diverted alot of attention towards the development of a TRUE top of the line console gpu is a possible reason worth mentioning because where they've lost in the recent gpu wars for the pc they've gone and got a major headstart over nvidia in terms of developing a unified shader architecture. Unified shaders are the future of videocards and ati already has one built, operational and in circulation within the xbox360. The r600 will put in question thoughts you've had about nvidia dominating ati the r580 will be a taste of whats to come.

I had the guts to admit that you were right about the recent gpu battle between ati and nvidia that nvidia has been getting the upper hand, but can you atleast admit that what i'm telling you about the 360's power and technology is true? Unless of course you can't do that do to the fact that you have no advanced understanding of what we are debating about.
Written by Blaze (1) on 2005/12/31

I'm just buying both. I don't care wich one is more powerful as long as the games come out that I wan't. Killer Instict 3 might be an amazeing game if it's announced!
Written by ace (6) on 2005/12/31

sgt. manji, you need to settle down there buddy. all of these posts before me talk about how graphically amazing that the 360 is and i just thought that it wasn't anything special based off of the games that are out now, not talking about the power that may or may not be "harnessed". the display that i played it on was also on a hdtv so it had every chance in the world to shine.

nonetheless, both systems are great graphically but ps2 still has the better games and experience when it comes to kicking ass in the console world.
Written by Dan (4) on 2005/12/31

These comments get extremely one sided by most people who post these because they are fanboys. Personally, as of right now I am leaning towards the PS3, due to the fact that it has amazing POTENTIAL. Now I am not very literiate in terms of the specs but just from reading articles and forums like this one it sounds like the PS3 "could" be far better than the 360. But on the other hand the 360 is already out and has proven to be better than the current generation of consoles. So you basically have what could be to what already is. Now to determine which one will be better you need to be able to play BOTH. But regardless of which one you like better both sides have to admit that the 360 is quite a bit better than current generation consoles and that the PS3 has the potential to dominate this generation like it did the last.

Any comments are welcome
Written by LinkofCourage (3) on 2005/12/31

ATI stated, but not said directly that the PS3 design sucks- WRONG.

Microsoft stole the controler buttons from Nintendo!

100% true facts from E3:

----

Graphics:

The two different graphics processors will deliver about the same amount of power.

Media Type:

ps3 -> BLUray -> 54 gigs.

x360 -> Double Layer DVDs -> 9 gigs.

Obviously the BLUray discs can store a lot more data

Processing Power:

PS3 uses a Cell processor with a PowerPC-based core with seven synergistic processing units while the Xbox comes with a Custom IBM PowerPC CPU with three dual-threaded cores that can handle six total threads at a time.

Both systems are clocked at 3.2 Ghz. The PS3 can handle 51-billion dot product operations per second and the Xbox can handle 33.6.

Overall it seems that the PS3 has an edge over the Xbox when it comes to overall processing power.

The pipelines for the PS3 is much stronger than the x-box 360- Therefore misleading.

The articel everybody talks about here is misleading you or atleast I thinks so. The PS3 is without a doubt stronger and more refined than the X-Box 360. So saying the PS3 is "unrefined" is just because the X-Box 360 uses ATI (the guy from this article) and the PS3 uses Nvidia (competitors).

My comment is more reality than fantasy from ATI!

Ok. Just to prove im not wrong, read what I wrote above. You will see that im not wrong when you read the specs for the consoles (remember the above information):

Specs in next comment due to character limit.

---

OPS! Didn't know that the comments binds together.

---

The PS3 "rapes" the x-box 360 in specifications:

Compare:

Product Name: Sony PlayStation 3 Microsoft Xbox 360

Release Date: 2006 ~~ Q4 2005

Controller: Bluetooth Wireless ~~ 2.4 GHz Wireless

Graphics Core Clock Speed: 550 MHz ~~ 500MHz

Graphics Processor: RSX "Reality Synthesizer" ~~ Custom ATI Processor

System Memory: 256 MB XDR ~~ 512 MB UMA (Shared with GPU)

Video Memory: 256 MB~~ 512 MB UMA (Shared with CPU)

[B]Embedded Video Memory: n/a ~~ 10MB eDRAM

Resolution: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p ~~ 480p, 480i, 720p, 1080i

Controller Ports: Supports up to 7 Bluetooth Controllers~~ Supports up to 4 Controllers

Digital Media Formats: Almost Similar to x-box ~~ + CD, JPEG Photo CD

Integrated Communications: ~~ (see under)

802.11 B/G Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.0 ~~ 802.11 A/B/G Wi-Fi ready, adapter not included

Other I/O Connectors:

ps3: Ethernet (RJ45), 6 USB 2.0, CF Slot (Type I, II), SD Slot (Regular, Compact), Memory Stick, Memory Stick Duo, 1 x Optical Audio

x-box 360: 3 USB 2.0, 2 Memory Slots, Ethernet Port (RJ45)

Plug and Play Storage:

ps3: 2.5in Removable Hard Drive (Unkown Size)

x-box 360: 20GB Removable Hard Drive

Standard AV Output Connectors: 2 x HDMI, 1 x AV ~~ n/a

L2 Cache: 512KB L2 cache, 256KB per SPE ~~ 1MB

Processor: Cell Processor ~~ Custom IBM PowerPC CPU

Processor Clock Speed: 3.2 GHz ~~ 3.2 GHz

Built-in Features:

ps3: Backward Compatible with PlayStation 2, Stands Vertically or Horizontally.

x-box 360: Backward Compatible with Xbox (limited), Stands Vertically or Horizontally, Interchangable Face Plates, Xbox Live Service, Media Center Extender.

Memory Bandwidth:

ps3: 25.6 GB/s main memory bandwidth, 22.4 GB/s video memory bandwidth

x-box 360: 22.4 GB/s main memory bandwidth, 256 GB/s to eDRAM, 21.6 GB/s FSB

Surround Sound:

Multichannel Output (software driven) ~~ Multichannel Output (software driven)

I will follow up this forum, but I do not have the time reading through all the comments, but I know I revealed the lies from many here, like the graphic differences.

So you see- top Specifications (and probably gameplay)

= PS3

Regards

LinkofCourage
Written by optaviusx on 2006/01/01

LinkofCourage first off you don't even mention usb ports because the fact that the ps3 has more usb ports means absolutely nothing lets be serious here...

Now I'd like to stop you immediately at the part where you said sony can handle 51 billion dot product operations per second. Hold on right there buddy Let me shed some light on that for you.

The ps3's alus work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8 GFLOPS

which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.

The ps3 is using more alus, but WEAKER alus running on vector 4s... the 360 runs on vector 5s and despite the 50 mhz speed advantage the end result is the 360 does 240GFLOPS the ps3 does 228.8GFLOPS. What was that about the ps3 killing 360 in specs department?



Nvidia videocards have had higher core clock speeds than ati videocards for the longest, but usually lost in most benchmarks except for nvidia's latest offering of the 7800gtx with 512mb of ram.

Also do you even realize that the 512MB of ram shared with the system memory and video memory is better than the ps3's 256 offerings for both categories right? Thanks to the gpu's memeory controlling capabilities it can effectively use the full 512mb of ram for both video memory and system memory at the exact same time.

The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s.

The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth.



The 360 also wins in this area... don't overlook that 10MB of edram my friend :) You know why for the ps3 it says not applicable? Because the ps3 doesn't have that type of technology in it. That 10mb of edram that you conveniently overlooked adds 256GB/s of memory bandwidth added to the 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth on the 360 giving the 360 more than 5 times the memory bandwidth of the 360... I think the 360 is winning in the specs department my friend...

Dot products are critical to games because they are used in 3D math to calculate vector lengths, projections, transformations, and more. The Xbox 360 CPU has a dot product instruction, where other CPUs such as Cell must emulate dot product using multiple instructions. You obviously listed those specs with no complete understanding of them. You are helping to prove my point.

Written by [email protected] (2) on 2006/01/01

That's total crap...The PS3 has more system bandwith than the 360...those are microsoft's which have been proven to be false...most developers working on both systems state the PS3 is the more powerful of the two systems...(there are a few exceptions) but EA, Sega, and Epic all say within two years the PS3 will show it's power advantage...

If you simply listen to what developers are saying they are using more CPU power for, Cell starts looking exceptionally suited for games. Most devs seem to be using extra cores for physics, animation, particle systems, graphics, audio, fluid/hair/cloth dynamics - these are the things which are most compute intensive, and these are the things the SPUs in Cell are really good at. As good, if not better than a conventional core, and there are 7 of them there in addition to the PPE. If you don’t believe me, look up Tim Sweeney’s comments about Cell on anandtech.com - basically he says that the things SPUs aren’t suited toward only take a small proportion of execution time anyway, and can be easily accomodated on the PPE. Or Crytek’s comments about potentially achieving a linear speedup across the SPUs. Cell is a clear and large advantage for PS3 when it comes to games, there’s no doubt in my mind.

Written by optaviusx on 2006/01/01

I'm a developer for epic and I'm telling you the ps3's biggest advantage over the 360 is streaming floating point related tasks. In that regard its better than the 360, but developers want go crazy over other aspects of the hardware we develop on. I actually saw that information microsoft released comparing the 360 to the ps3 and they didn't tell a single lie in all of that other than microsoft failed to mention the ps3 runs at more teraflops, but the 360 wins in a number of areas. Developers are going crazy over the unified shader we are getting the chance to work with on the 360 and the fact that there is 512 MEGABYTES of ram dedicated to system memory and video memory that is huge.... let me tell you. I'm not trying to bad mouth the ps3 here, but I just don't like to see the 360 talked down when its such a powerful machine. 10MB of edram that knows how to antialias up to 4x at no performance hit is bliss.



Let me ask you one thing do you know that a unified shader architecture is an upgrade over anything currently out for a pc? You don't believe look at nvidia themselves have announced for 2006 their chips will be using unified shaders like the 360. What exactly does that tell you?

The 360 gpu is able to operate at 100% efficiency at all times thanks to the unified shader and alot of people fail to realize the 360 gpu is pushing 48 unified pipelines.... the 7800gtx has 24 non unified pipes. Please understand what I'm trying to help you guys understand here that is a major deal.

Let me ask you one thing do you know that a unified shader architecture is an upgrade over anything currently out for a pc? You don't believe look at nvidia themselves have announced for 2006 their chips will be using unified shaders like the 360. What exactly does that tell you?

The 360 gpu is able to operate at 100% efficiency at all times thanks to the unified shader and alot of people fail to realize the 360 gpu is pushing 48 unified pipelines.... the 7800gtx has 24 non unified pipes.

Accidentally stated same thing twice sorry.
Written by Rokku (5) on 2006/01/01

Hey didn't anyone read my post about 360 GPU with its 10MB EDRAM and unified shaders...I summed it up nicely :)

Anyone that states that the RSX is better than the Xenon seriously has no clue of what they're saying.

STOP COMPARING IT TO THE X1800XL! Where the hell did you pull that out off?
Written by gokusgrill (10) on 2006/01/01

*Edited: Yeah I removed your comments, and this one too. You need to learn how to express yourself without flaming other people. I don't care what facts you post, but if you flame at the same time your post is removed. Learn the rules, or don't bother posting.*
Written by [email protected] (2) on 2006/01/01

The unified shader architecture is bull. It’s a new way of doing things period. Nvidia theorizes they can get 100% efficiency, but most everybody agrees that it is not realistic. The problem with a new architecture is nobody’s sure if it’s going to live up to the hype especially in the first generation. It's far harder to design a unified processor - it has to do, by design, twice as much. Another word for 'unified' is 'shared', and another word for 'shared' is 'competing'. It's a challenge to create a chip that does load balancing and performance prediction. It's extremely important, especially in a console architecture, for the performance to be predicable. With all that balancing, it's difficult to make the performance predictable. I've even heard that some developers dislike the unified pipe, and will be handling vertex pipeline calculations on the Xbox 360's triple-core CPU.
Written by ceejay (5) on 2006/01/01

people stop arguing about which is better PS3 will come out soon and then we will see whch is better.
Written by Dims (1) on 2006/01/01

I really can't believe this...so many people going on about how the RSX is just a nvidia 7800GTX. You guys need to do your research because the RSX is a project that was custom built with the cell with a basis of that card, much like the 360's card and the 1800XL. About the 360 having 48 pipelines compared to the 24 of the RSX....Unified shaders are less efficient than dedicated shaders and therefore the performance is basically the same. The 5 times more bandwith in the 360 that people are bragging on about is only because the bandwith between the on board die and the GPU was counted and in fact the PS3 has a larger bandwith between CPU AND GPU. Nobody actually knows the specs of the RSX for sure right now but you can bet that they'll boost it to be better than the 360's GPU in order to boast about it, if needs be that is which i doubt.
Written by kelvin brannon (6) on 2006/01/01

in an panick attempt sonic switched over to the nvidia

7800gtx graphics card realizing that the original 6800

or 7800 did meet the graphics capabilities of the 360

ati graphics card now the ps3 architecture was not design around the 7800gtx card which means that sony will be pulling off the shelf components to meet the

specifications of that graphics card.
Written by LinkofCourage (3) on 2006/01/01

PS! Noticed someone said something about that the ps3 does not have good enough technology to have the 10 mb edram.

Without the 10 mb, the x-box would be even far worse in that section. Still with the 10 mb it is behind.

But lets be realistic-- Both consoles holds enough power to satisfy even the most die-hard game expert.
Written by G (3) on 2006/01/01

future nvidia cards will be using unified shaders. well who woulda guessed.
Written by Rokku (5) on 2006/01/02

LOL thats so typical of graphic card companies, (both ATI and NVIDIA) they all state that technologies they don't have aren't important until they finally can make it and then its suddenly the best thing since sliced bread. I'm no fanboy of either company. In fact I hated all the ATI cards after the 9800pro because the 6800 and 7800 blew them out of the water since they could do SM 3.0 rendering and were faster. At the time ATI said that SM 3.0 was over hyped. Well the same thing is happening with unified shaders. Because ATI was first to develop it and NVIDIA was unable to compete, they of course tried to downplay the importance of it.

There's an actual interview with ATI engineer who said that nvidia is only saying unified shaders suck because they're behind, but as soon as they're engineering catches up to ATI they'll suddenly say its awesome.

Ohh look whats happening now :P
Written by Oen on 2006/01/02

Anyone interested in a real debate, instead of fanboys and flaming can continue it on our forums.

Forums
Written by Dowen (1) on 2006/01/02

I still firmly believe that PS3 will have an edge over XBox 360 because of the brand AND because the games are better (in general).
Written by Guest (3) on 2006/01/02

Brand? You think sony is a good brand? Look into the history sony and see how "good" the sony "brand" is.
Written by Ozzmaster (1) on 2006/01/02

the ps3 will outpreform the 360 in every way because of the cell

Yes Sony is a good brand. Outselling microsoft five to one, and dominating the console market for 10 years

Written by RISHI (1) on 2006/01/02

let me explain

FACTS:

->the x360 gpu has three groups of 16 AlUs(3x16=48)

->the r500 architecture is arranged as pixel Quads

->each of the pixel shaders in the Quads has

1) 2 x vector alu

2> 2 x scalar alu (and a branch predictor)

CONCLUSION:

-> a pixel quad has 4x(2+2)= 16 ALUs

-> thus the 3 groups of 16 ALUs are just 3 pixel Quads.



THE WORST CASE SCENARIO

thus in the worst case x360 graphics have only 3 pixel Quads or 12 pixel shaders only.

THE BEST CASE SCENARIO :

if the ALUs in x360 are capable of both vector and scalar

operations it has 24 pixel shaders or 6 pixel Quads!!!

of course they have the overhead of simulating vertex shaders as well .Because xbox 360 doesnt have standalone vertex shaders

(remember unified architecture).

and the most important point is it has only 8 rop's.

hence it can output only 8 pixels per clock.

CONCLUSION:

i all have a speed of 500 MHz

x1600 < x360graphics

x1800 may be nearly equal at lower resolutions

but the up comming R580 definitely owns the x360

Written by Possum Lord (1) on 2006/01/02

no...sony isn't a good brand...just because they outsell doesn't mean they are a good brand...sony has a really bad history and never seem to get things right the first time...

Oh...and as far as the blu-ray thing goes...i'm thinking mini-cd's...anyone remember those?

Written by Object (1) on 2006/01/03

It's hard to have a one-sided debate that either touts video performance or game variety. It's equally irrelevant to cite a console potential without considering the game programmer's ability to use the resources made available by the respective consoles. I think Rokku made a very strong point in clarifying the 360 processing focus and it's accessibility to real-world gaming.

(Cont'd)

Nonetheless, if we can agree that the differences in game play will differ, but only marginally, and if we can also agree that the PS3 will be just as expensive or more than the 360 and finally we note that the 360 will have almost a year of consumer testing/feedback when the first PS3 console is launched, then wouldn't it make most sense to purchase the 360, hole yourself up for at least a year or two, wait and see what happens to the PS3--a note on the financial viability of the PS3: search the net for an article that speculates that Sony will have unforeseen difficulties in breaking even on PS3 sales within a reasonable time, and the possible consequences thereof.

I'd also like you to consider whether MS hasn't caught wind of Sony's game diversity advantage. My guess is that, since profits will mostly be derived from game sales, and the console is nothing more than a platform built to get the consumer to spend money on the games, then it would make sense that:

1) MS will strive to acquire the best (most popular)

game title available

and

2) Since, from all I've read, MS has developed an

easier programming interface than the PS3, most

game developers would tend to flock to 360 from a $

perspective (less labor, les debugging, etc...)



Remember, competition has driven console developers to push the envelope on gaming and rendering, their marginal advantages, while not negligible, are probably not significant enough to delay our entry into the next generation of console gaming.

All this from a PS2 fanboy...

Written by Zildjian Arman (1) on 2006/01/03

Let's face it!!!!--- Xbox 360, PS3, even Revolution w/ the steps they have taken towards being creative w/ there (controller) will all be worth having..It's like I tell my friends..I am a true hard core gamer my PC- 2.8 Fx-57,2gigs ram,7800GTX (1),10,000 rpm WD Raptor.EEeexpensive!! I like bragging about my pc it's awesome!!!!Anyway, if there is ever a generation to own more than one "Console" at the same time it is this new or next generation..At least( Hardcore Gamers) pic 2 of the 3 coming out..I don't think for the money that consoles cost that we could go wrong...Right? Sega is out of the picture...Take care, Everyone..
Written by SesMan on 2006/01/03

XBOX 360 Debate: First off I have to give props to Rokku! Rokku you summed up the 360 GPU with its 10MB EDRAM and unified shaders wonderfully. A lot of that stuff is above my head, but it really sounds like you know what you're talking about. In my opinion you put gokusgrill in his place as for the arguments about the difference between the PS3 and XBOX360 CPU and Graphics Cards. I enjoyed reading your posts. It was interesting to see you all go back and forth like that over the specs. Anyone reading the posts who thinks logically can determine that from a programmer's stand point that the XBOX 360 will be easier to develop games for. Also, I know that it is possible to be a programmer that has worked on multiple platforms, and will work on 360 titles as well as PS3 titles. Thanks Rokku for settin'em straight.

I own an XBOX 360 and I plan to get a Sony PS3 as well as the Nintendo Revolution. I'm a true console gamer that loves to play the best games out "right now". I was there for the Dreamcast, PS2, XBOX, Gamecube, and XBOX 360 launches. And, I'm happy with all those systems. They each brought something different. I'm looking forward to being able to play Metal Gear Solid 4 and Halo 3. For anyone out there reading these posts who wants a PS3 vs 360 battle, you'll get to see it begin in about one entire year after the XBOX 360 launch. So, until then try to enjoy what's out now and be happy that Microsoft exists. For if it weren't for them producing the XBOX and XBOX 360, Sony wouldn't be pushing the envelope to produce the highest possible quality games to date.
Written by mgs4 sub-title (1) on 2006/01/04

Just look at the performans mgs4 has to offer on the ps3, that there shows the systems potintial right now. There are many reporters and game dovelopers with there difrences on the two systems but there are more that are impressed by what the ps3 can do. We have a XBOX360 in our living room and I can tell you I was not blown away by the visual aspect. EA Sports was very surprised about that issue being a problem on the 360. EA was not expecting this from the system and this was one of the reasons why they were down on sales for the xbox 360 alone. I think from what Iv manage to resurch so far on the net I could think of 20 good reasons why you should wait for the ps3.
Written by SesMan on 2006/01/04

I can tell you know there are not 20 good reasons to wait 10 more months for the PS3 instead of getting an XBOX360 as soon as possible. Does this last guy posting MGS4 even have an HDTV? Lastly, I would sure hope that the PS3 should launch with better graphics and a more powerful system considering that Sony is releasing the system One full year after the XBOX360 November 22nd Debut!
Written by DW (1) on 2006/01/04

I own a x360--- love it!! I'm going to get a ps3 just to have a blue-ray player, if nothing else, because it will be the least expensive blue-ray player you can purchase.Any other home unit will easily be $800.00 to 1000.00 when they first come out with Blue-ray home units..Let's face it guys theae two company are forcing there to be 2 dominant formats..And Microsoft will be having a HD-DVD upgrade.No Question>> HD is the future/present>>plus Morrowind is already going to be like 4 to 5 disk preasantly they want to do away with that as well..All on 1 disk HD-DVD, BLUE-RAY
Written by Freshcut_T70 (2) on 2006/01/05

I think Microsoft did a lot of things right with the 360. The price is decent if not a litle high (remember the Saturn debuted at $400.00 in 95')and the games will come since its a lot easier to develop games for it over the PS3. Developers have stated this time and again. Once Sony actually get the PS3 to market ,icrosoft will have a solid base and 2nd generation of games out. I remember when the PS2 came out and was suppose to be a giant leap over the Dreamcast which was nothing but hype but a lot gamers bought into that crap and abandoned the DC too early. The DC actually emulates PSone games better then the PS2. The 360 has time to grow into its prime while Sony scares us with used game lock outs (they were actually considering this crap) and hype worthy of the Emotion engine.
Written by Sky (360) on 2006/01/05

Why are people talking about the GPU of the 360 is better then the PS3 when the full "offical" specs of the RSX havent been released yet? all these comments are pointless
Written by silverwolf (7) on 2006/01/13

The RSX has been released dork it's called the 7800GTX. The XBOX 360 is better than the PS3! PS3 was put together at the last minute once Sony realized the cell was insufficient to do the graphics on it own.
Written by optaviusx on 2006/01/14

For anyone still wondering the xbox360 is better than even ati's r580 gpu i'm 100% sure about this alot of people here are completely wrong when it comes to facts. Ati's x1800xt gets throughly demolished by the 360 gpu make no mistake about it.

There wont be anything like the 360 gpu until ati's r600 go look on sites for what the r600 will have and its similar to the 360. The 360 gpu has features that go beyond shader model 3.0 and even directx10 which is unreleased for vista.

silverwolf is right the rsx is infact a 7800gtx all it takes to realize this fact is simply understanding what makes up a the g70 graphics processor which is the 7800gtx and this is exactly what is in the ps3 gpu.

Nvidia's 7800GTX 512MB model is superior to the 7800GTX inside the PS3 which only has 256MB of video memory. There is currently nothing out that can outperform the 360 gpu.

Wolf is also correct on another point sony did infact believe the cell could handle some graphics related issues that would take pressure off the gpu, but they found that isn't the case and the ps3 gpu is stuck with the tasks they thought the cell would relieve it of.

Games are becoming less and less about polygons its becoming more about shader performance if what your shaders are delivering can't be matched by the competition then in no way can what you deliver in lesser polygons be upstaged by something that is simply running on higher polys.

The 360 is no slouch when it comes to the polys by any stroke of the imagination (ie: fight night round 3), infact both consoles can do that well, but in terms of shader power the 360 will embarass the ps3 and in 1 year maybe 2 from now the 360 will be doing things the ps3 couldn't dream of and people will notice.

Everyone here please lookup project offset a game engine that thrives on unified shaders which is what is on the 360 gpu, but not on ps3 gpu. The game looks as good as the killzone demo, but in actual gameplay.

Don't be surprised (if bungie puts in the time) Halo 3 could look just as good as that if not better.
Written by what morons (1) on 2006/01/15

*Edited: Calling people bozo's and idiots. Not allowed.*
Written by Sickman (1) on 2006/02/14

I love you all.
Written by fazyninja (2) on 2006/04/09

very well said, optaviusx and some other people further down the lsit i can not rmemeber all the names.

i look forward to this years e3, as i believe M$ will be showing all their best stuff off, which should keep the ps3 fanboys down for a while.
Written by Creativemindmm (1) on 2006/05/06

What it really boils down to is sales figures. Let the consumer decide what is the better console. The best tech specs are pointless if the content on these systems aren't what the public wants, and the titles are optimized for the platforms (notice how Microsoft has a higher market share with windows XP than linux and mac OS X in the home environment combined?). Currently, from what I've seen of the xbox 360, I've not personally been too impressed... yeah, the graphics are nice, but the framerate takes major hits (notably from king kong, for example). If this is how the console is going to continue to deliver on newer titles, then xb360 has a dismal future ahead. I've not seen anything actually from the ps3, so I can't comment about it.

Personally, I like where the WII is going in terms of marketing and everything else. it's not the best of hardware, and won't keep up w/ the ps3 or xb360, but it's not intended to (you all know that).
Written by Brett (1) on 2006/05/12

personally I think that the PS3 will be the dominant console.playstation 2 has graphics all most as good as xbox, and it came out 1 year earlier.The games for the PS2 are a lot better than xbox. Alls xbox has is halo to keep microsoft alive, and even that is not enough.Now they have to steal some games from the PS2 to keep their system going.I bet that if halo were to be available on a sony system, the xbox would be worth nothing.I've played the xbox 360 and i think the lighting is bad not to mention 1 out of every 6 is having some kind of problem.PS3 is doing the right thing by taking its time.It will out preform the xbox 360 in every way. I dont think microsoft has any chance of staying around when the pS3 comes out.
Written by Bryan (2) on 2006/06/02

People seem to forget PS2 was priced sensibly. Nothing about the PS3 is sensible. Development cost or consumer cost. This time around the average joe will gravitate toward the Wii or 360, and if he wants a quote "regular" gaming experience, he will pick the 360 up.

All of my casual gamer friends laughed out loud when they heard the price for a PS3. Vowing not to buy it. This, coming from people who only owned a PS2 last gen.
Written by randolph (1) on 2006/06/24

Very Very nice information here... Thanks
Written by NIN (1) on 2006/06/30

Lots and lots of useful information. Some very accurate and some incredibly lame. So here’s my 2 cents: Sony being a big company sure has lots of people with good knowledge of what they are building, so does MS... So don’t flame any of them by saying jap-crap and evil M$ (which I must say I agree into some extent). Now on the XboX subject... the first gen was a big hunk of steaming ****. I.E MKDA was choppy on the xbox. And after prolong hrs of use it was a pain in the ass to play, do to it’s over heating problems...

THEN the programming of the console was not as good as I could have been (I think) then again it come from the creators of Windows (can’t expect anything better). BUT then there is Halo a wonderful game that ran sooo smooth and drained everything the xbox could put out. On the ps2 side no heating problems graphix were awesome in most of the games and MKDA was running wonderfully...

BUT GOD fervid that there where one to many explosions or characters in one place at the same time cuz one would think to be in the matrix (for the slow motion effect)like in MGS3. Now I have tried the 360 for more then a month. I must say am neither disappointed nor impressed. And still we have an overheat problem and then the chopping occurs. But this is the fault of ATI they dropped the ball a long time ago and NVIDIA picked it up. I for one think that MS shouldn’t have gone with ATI at all. now what can I expect from the ps3 when its predecessor had a very annoying fault... ill definitely sale my 360 and get the ps3 try it and post my opinion(not like anybody cares, but still just for the hell of it) and I must say that my bet is on the ps3 this time. For the simplest reason. The NVIDIA chipset. ;)



p.s.: I am not saying any Console is the absolute gamming machine nor that this one is better then that one, just that they all have their pros and cons

ohh and we still have the big N to step into place... good luck guys!!!

CHEERSS!!!

Written by Ilya (1) on 2006/09/19

PS3 is comming out in November 17th. We should see how it compares with the 360.

My money is on the PS3. It has a 7 core processor (im impressed), and it has the Blu-Ray disc. 100-200GB (they will add more layers to the Blu-Ray making it 100-200GB). And that's also impressive.

Don't forget that there will be removable and upgradable components, so lets say the gfx card gets old. You can replace it. Hope that helps, and note to 80% of the people who posted, stop flaming. You are fanboys (I am too), but atleast I don't say that the 360 is a load of shit. I played it before, and I thought it was neat.
Written by gamer1 (1) on 2006/10/17

the ps3 is stronger the 360, but don't think that i hate the 360. i have a 360 and i like the system very much. even tho i had to exchange it 3 times. im pretty share i have to do the same with the ps3, but the system does cost alot more. to me blueray is the main reason why the ps3 is stronger. amagine how long the games are going to be and if not long, how much stuff its going to have. xbox360 still has a alot and i mean alot of good games coming out
You need to REGISTER in order to post a comment.

Recent Articles

 

Street Fighter IV Arcade Machine Project

 

GamersReporting Weekly - October 16, 2008

 

GamersReporting Weekly - September 29, 2008

 

GamersReporting Weekly - April 11, 2008

 

GamersReporting Weekly - March 30, 2008

 

GamersReporting Weekly - March 12, 2008

 

GamersReporting Weekly - March 5, 2008

 

GamersReporting Weekly - February 27, 2008

 

Top 10 Gaming Gadgets & Accessories Of 2007

 

GamersReporting 12/27



06/24 (6 Total)



06/24 (5 Total)



06/24 (5 Total)



06/24 (2 Total)



06/24 (2 Total)



06/24 (9 Total)



06/24 (9 Total)



06/24 (12 Total)



06/24 (12 Total)



06/24 (12 Total)
© 2017 GamersReports.com. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy