Sony PS3 275,000,000 polygons per second vs Xbox 360’s 500,000,000
Kim Naroz left a really long comment on the post about the amount of power the developers are using form the Xbox 360 and Sony Playstation 3, he pointed out that the Sony PS3 display’s 275,000,000 polygons per second, compared to the 500,000,000 polygons per second of the Xbox 360.
My question is does this really matter?
Here is Kim Naroz’s Comment:
Someone needs to point out that the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second, compared to the 500,000,000 polygons per second of the Xbox 360.
That is the reason why games like John Madden Football 2008, NCAA Football 2008, All-Pro Football 2008, and many other games from EA Sports, 2K Sports, and so many others all run at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but only 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3.
Gamespot specifically said in the review of those sports games: “The Xbox 360 versions run smoothly at 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution, while the Playstation 3 versions struggle to run at 30 frames per second at 720p resolution.â€
It isn’t just sports games with that problem. Look at all the Tony Hawk Skating games, Tom Clancy Splinter Cell: Double Agent, and F.E.A.R. They have frame rates that drop below 20 frames per second on the PS3 and go into slow motion it is so bad…even though the Xbox 360 versions have very smooth framerates.
Oblivion is NOW BETTER on the Xbox 360!!!
When Oblivion was released a year later on the PS3, it used a new shader design…that had NOTHING to do with hardware technology; it was just something put into the new version of the game as a software program. The download was released for the Xbox 360 later on, but the PS3 fanboys always pointed out, “But when you compare the actual discs, the PS3 one has some advantages (although the Xbox 360 version also has advantages, and was ALWAYS rated higher).
Oblivion: Game of the Year Edition is now available for the Xbox 360, and when you now compare Oblivion on the Xbox 360 to Oblivion on the PS3, there is NO DOUBT that the Xbox 360 version is significantly better; that is why it is rated higher!
The Playstation 3 version of Oblivon is a perfect example that what this man is saying about the Hard Drive of the PS3 being used to help out with memory limitations is NOT true. Consider the FACT that the Playstation 3 version of Oblivion does NOT allow the entire world to exist in the game at the same time, like the Xbox 360 version does. This is because of the Memory Bandwidth hardware bottleneck of the Playstation 3.
Also, when it comes to RAM, the Xbox 360 certainly DOES have fundamental advantages over the Playstation 3!
For example, the CPU of the PS3 can NEVER access more than 256MB of RAM at any point. The Xbox 360 CPU is free to access up to 512MB of RAM if there was a need. With the PS3, there are plenty of times when the CPU needs more than 256MB of RAM, and the Video-RAM of the PS3 is actually using less than 256MB of RAM, which means that if the PS3 had a Unified RAM environment–like the Xbox 360’s–then that unused Video-RAM could help the CPU, like it does on the Xbox 360. OBVIOUSLY, the Xbox 360 RAM design is much more flexible; it helps developers in ways that they enjoy working with.
Plus, it’s important to remember that the original design of the Playstation 3 called for the used of TWO Cell CPU processors–each with two Threads that could Send signals to the SPE subprocessors.
However, when Sony saw the design of the Xbox 360, and they saw how much better the Xbox 360 was, then Sony was forced to redesign the Playstation 3 very quickly in a way that hurt the PS3 system. This is nearly identical to what happened with Sega and the Saturn. Sega saw how much better the original PS1 was, and they were forced to quickly redesign the Saturn in a way that used parallel processing that was difficult to work with and was more expensive. This is EXACTLY what happened with the Playstation 3.
The original design of the PS3 was not even supposed to used a GPU, because it was going to have two of the Cell CPU processors. But when Sony saw the revolutionary ATI GPU in the Xbox 360 that was Custom designed for the Xbox 360, and was 1.5 years ahead of its time (since the PC didn’t see similar Unified Shader technology until January 30, 2007), then Sony was forced to removed one of the Cell CPUs in the PS3, and instead add a Nvidia GPU. But there was NOT time to custom design the GPU, so Sony was forced to included a four-year old generic GPU in the PS3. That is why people often point out the vast superiority of the Xbox 360 GPU.
Now that the PS3 only has one 3.2Ghz Cell CPU, it means that the PS3 has only two Threads capable of Sending signals to the six SPE sub-processors running parallel. Each of those six SPE processors is capable of Receiving a Threaded signal; however, the PS3 CPU is only capable of Sending two Threaded signals. This is where the hardware “bottleneck†of the PS3 reveals itself. Programmers often say that the PS3 has two arms (CPU Threads) that are trying to juggle six balls (SPE sub-processors). Obviously, that is NOT possible, and that is why the Playstation 3 hardware is such a BIG disappointment.
With the Xbox 360, Microsoft used a much newer and better form of technology. PCs often brag about their “dual-core†CPU design. The Xbox 360 actually takes that to the next level and used a “tri-core†CPU design, with each CPU using the most developer-favored videogame processor available–the PowerPC.
The Xbox 360 is literally the exact opposite when compared to the Playstation 3 in terms of hardware design and efficiency. The Xbox 360 has three 3.2Ghz CPUs, each with two Threads capable of Sending instructions. But the Xbox 360 doesn’t the outdated parallel processing environment of the PS3. There are no “sub-processors†to worry about with the Xbox 360. The signals can be focused on CPU and GPU commands. This literally means the Xbox 360 has six arms (CPU Threads) that are being asked to juggle only two balls (GPU and CPU functions).
THAT is why the developers absolutely LOVE the Xbox 360 and can design games so much more efficiently for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why games are released so much earlier for the Xbox 360.
THAT is why the overwhelming majority of Xbox 360 games offer better graphic and online performance on the Xbox 360.
THAT is NOT going to change!
It may be easier to port a PS3 game to the Xbox 360 than it is to port an Xbox 360 to the PS3 (since the Xbox 360 is more powerful in terms of videogame performance–500,000,000 polygons for the Xbox 360 is more than the 275,000,000 for the PS3), but the Xbox 360 will continue to be the Lead Platform this generation for two reasons:
(1) Because the Xbox 360 is so much easier for developers to develop games for and experiment with new types of gameplay.
(2) Because the Xbox 360 has sold over Eight-Million more systems than the Playstation 3, and that lead continues grow by hundreds of thousands of systems each month, in terms of Worldwide Sales.
Search
Recent comments
- i THINK I AM COOL
5 hours 4 min ago - SmyD
5 hours 8 min ago - Loved ZappZ
5 hours 10 min ago - you guys are retarded
5 hours 11 min ago - U GAY FGET CANT
5 hours 27 min ago - Chaos theory ps3 MULTIPLAYER
6 hours 24 min ago - hey can somebody make a
9 hours 29 min ago - haha
10 hours 28 min ago - Exactly. I can't imagine they
12 hours 20 min ago - EUdude
19 hours 46 min ago
Comments
bleax!
:)
Consoles are gay.
Is it because you can't afford one?
Yikes, this is kind of hilarious and weird. Yeah the Xbox's GPU can technically push more polygons...because it can dedicate the whole thing to doing nothing but setting up polygons. This isn't useful in actual games, obviously, since that's only a fraction of what a GPU has to perform.
Early games referenced ran worse because they had far, far less development time. I also suspect that things that were run on two PPEs were just thrown on a single one on the Playstation....this obviously doesn't really bear out in later games.
Also, neither system is really capable of 1080p. The game claimed to be running at that on the Xbox of course doesn't. Almost everything is 720p or below on both systems, although it's actually the Playstation that has a handful more games running higher than that. It won't be until the next gen systems that we get 1080p.
The GPUs are comparable, neither is "vastly superior". Nor is the PLaystation's GPU "4 years old and generic" at the time of the system's launch...in 2005 they were both pretty high end, though not as good as the best stuff available (and both were vastly outclassed by 2006).
This:
<<<"Now that the PS3 only has one 3.2Ghz Cell CPU, it means that the PS3 has only two Threads capable of Sending signals to the six SPE sub-processors running parallel. Each of those six SPE processors is capable of Receiving a Threaded signal; however, the PS3 CPU is only capable of Sending two Threaded signals.">>>
Doesn't mean anything. The PPE's are CPUs, they don't need another CPU to be constantly telling them what to do...that defeats the whole purpose of having additional CPUs.
<<>>
This is of course also bogus. The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 use CPUs designed together basically, and they're less advanced than the CPUs available in PCs of that era. They're in-order CPUs, something we hadn't really seen since the Pentium Pro, and (for example) all three Xbox CPUs together have about the same transistor count as a single core Prescott Pentium 4. Basically very predictable code could run well on the Xbox or Playstation CPU, but anything that branches much is going to run vastly better on a comparably clocked Pentium 4...let alone the many CPU generations released since then.
<<>>
This is nonsensical. Both have comparable GPUs, both use similar CPUs, designed by the same firm at the same time.
<<>>
This right here is the most ludicrous statement in the whole thing. To begin with, the Xbox DOES have a “parallel processing environment”...it has three CPUs...remember? Furthermore, calling that “outdated” is just plain whacky. Obviously the trend over the years has been towards more CPUs and more parallel processing, not less...that's the opposite of “outdated”.
Yes, the Playstation was harder to code for. It's also 1.5 years behind the Xbox for development kits...so of course it was going to be a bit rocky at first. Regardless, the Playstation still has potentially 2.6x the floating point performance on the Xbox, and a GPU that seems to do contrast and mip map blending better. In the scheme of things they're very close, but in absolute terms there's no question the Playstation is technically more powerful.
Ah, I just saw this ridiculous bit too:
<<>>
The game does not have “the entire world exist at the same time” on any hardware. That would make ZERO sense to code it like that-if you did, you'd have to have...I don't know, Playstation 1, or maybe Commodore 64 style graphics? It makes zero sense to continue “having the whole world” worked on at the same time, and that's not how games are done on any platform.
The second part is ludicrous too. The Playstation does not have a “memory bandwidth hardware bottleneck” in comparison to the Xbox. In fact it has over double the memory bandwidth. The Xbox makes up for that with a 10MB cache/video RAM, which was very fast for its day. Part of the frame gets rendered to that, before being flipped out to main RAM, and its that video RAM which helps alleviate otherwise having less total bandwidth.
And what the heck:
<<>>
No, it's nothing remotely like that. Far from Sony “quickly redesigning the Playstation”, the Xbox's CPU was DERIVED FROM the Playstation's CPU that was already in development. If anything you have that backwards, except in this case Microsoft was just offered a variation on the same tech.
And of course the second reason that's ridiculous is that BOTH SYSTEMS and indeed almost all computer platforms now use multiple CPU cores. You're inexplicably ignoring that BOTH systems do that when randomly bashing the Playstation for doing it.
Yes, it's made development harder, at first at least, but it was a necessary change from a hardware perspective, that's actually been used in arcade boards since the 80's. In consoles starting with the Genesis. In the Nintendo DS, the Playstation Portable, the Saturn, the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, any remotely decent PC sold, even newer 'smartphones' that are starting to come out.
It's just a way to use all the extra transistors now available...instead of just making the chip wider and wider and wider, they've split it into multiple logically separate cores...it makes sense to do that. (Of course CPUs are also wider too...Core 2 for example has 2x the execution units of one of the cores in the Playstation or Xbox, inaddition to those execution units being more efficient, etc.).
Epic showed MS what Gears would look like with only 256mb video RAM. So MS went with 512mb to fulfill developers wishes. Wonder why Sony came out a year later with (mostly) weaker specs?
What a hell load of bullcrap. PS3 is miles better than XbOX. I was hoping for a balanced and well explained argument, not some gay xbox fanboy chattin bullcrap about things the xbox could never ever do(like be better than ps3). If you check the TOTAL processing + GPU power, the ps3 has TWICE as much as the xbox.
This is from the Guniess WOrld records, u can't argue against this:
XBOX 3Sh1ty > 1 TeraFlop
P$3 > 2 TERAFLOPS
So Xbox is a Super-FLop
Just some words: Gran Turismo 5 fits a 30 GB Blu-Ray disc and has graphics much better than Forza 3 , also , EVEN if Xbox 360 has a better graphical performance , It lacks the extra space needed to fit larger than 9 GB games , wich the PS3 offers even in excess with its 50 GB dual-layer Blu-Ray discs, the same happens with N64 compared with the PS1 , while the N64 had 64 bit processing and better graphics , its 240 mbits cartridges lacked the space that a 600 mbytes CD could provide ,.
Please explain why gt5 has an install size of only 10gb on the hdd..? Go ahead, i'll wait..
Xbox 360 couldnt dream of running Uncharted 2.
If this is true or not lets make one thing very clear: I have had three Xbox 360's and all of them are red ringed and dead. My PS3 has given me NO problems and is a much better product all around. I love my current XBox 360, but my PS3 runs better, plays blu-rays, and has a browser. Harp all you want fanboy, Sony and Nintendo both have a more reiable product.
This is complete crap. The PS3 is superior to the XBOX 360 in hardware in almost every single way. Get your facts right and then pick up a book on writing while you're at it.
just do like I did...get both systems! LOL
Who wrote this? a 12yr old?
I have no issues with the underlying story, but you write so poorly. Completely disjointed with no structure.
As an educated man with BOTH consoles, I see basically no difference between them whatsoever graphically (not counting resolution or framerate).
The Xbox 360 sells well because of it's endless list of exclusives and the ps3 sells well because of its potential.I bought the ps3 expecting to be wowed but it was a big meh. Half of the games only run on 720p and despite the decreased resolution had choppy framerates. Ports look on par with the 360.
BluRay is slow and is probably just a marketing gimmick. I have a Ps3 with 3 or 4 crappy movies (EXPENSIVE, like $50aud) and a fancy DVD player with a hard drive and an archive of DVD's numbering in the hundreds. which would you choose.
I was relieved to find that the ps3 had gone for a unified online experience and was even more relieved to find that it was free. So i cancelled my subscription to live and played on PSN for a month or two. PSN turned out to be a cluster*@#$ and left me crawling bloodied and battered back to good old live. Its not free but it's reliable and easy and it has "good" voice chat support.
Until a good exclusive comes out for the ps3 (like Uncharted but I'm bored with that now) ill stick with good ol' gears of war and halo. I cant help but think the ps3 will eventually win this war because of the endless propaganda sony pulls out of their ass (don't worry! it sucked me in too) and plain simple fanboy loyalty.
Oh i was also surprised to find that ps3's now lack backwards compatibility(Yes i know the xbox 360 backwards compatibility is a complete joke but at least it works). That was one of the only reasons i bought the damn thing. I don't know how everyone else will take this, but it seems sony are a little too eager for price cuts and I'm glad i bought the first model.
do u mean diz comparison of 360 n ps3 cuz da 360 won >
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/27731.html
or this other comparison >
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28006.html
OR THAT COMPARISON>>
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html
COPY N PASTE GO THOSE SITE N CHECK OUT FOR UR SELF
It's pretty complicated.
The amount of misinformation in this thread is staggering. You guys seem to have no idea what you are talking about. Stop confusing the OP. I'll explain it.
Below is a very technical explanation:
The XBox 360 has DirectX 10, as you all know, but it actually uses a special version that utilizes some features planned for DirectX 11 (known internally to Microsoft as DirectXXI ). That software has a special hardware function called Ebkac that enables real-time NURBS and raytracing through advanced box-modelling techniques. That's why 360 games look a little better; the software lets the 360 pixel-draw with much less CPU cost. Plus, the 360 has three 3 GHz G5 processors, it's like a PowerMac.
Meanwhile, the PS3 has its own advantages. See, the Cell processor can put out teraflops, it has 8 processors, and uses its teraflops to texture multi-sided polygons, it's really quite impressive. That's where the term 4D comes from. The cell's speed is rated at 120,000 HPC. The 7th Synergistic Processing Element (#007) in the Cell processor runs a process called RSX that is used for graphical effects.
Both have problems though. The 360 uses Shared RAM, and anyone who has ever built a PC knows that shared RAM is slower than dedicated. But the PS3 doesn't have a graphics card, using the Cell for everything, and developers don't know how to use the Cell very well, so 360 games always end up looking better.
I hope you learn from this, it's really quite fascinating the way this industry works.
lol i believe what i see > a couple of years ago .. yes the 360 had beter graphics well not anymore > don't belive me watch gametrailers comparisions
plus i know ram is low on both ps3 and 360 but remember both have a trick up their sleeves
360 : daughter buffering shit
ps3: cell moves info really fast also shit but better than buying an expensive computer
umm i have cosoles cuz my brother both a ps3 for his birthday n i had a 360 like 20 days ago n well both sytems are good graphic wise not much of a difference some games on da 360 does look bettah dou n da 360 has great online play n great games dats the reson i bought the 360 n some ppl say da ps3 is powerfull but i like da 360 betta its all about preference fuck fan boys on both sides just play the damn game n stop waster ur time arguing with ppl over a damn console its emberresing
Please just go review the IBM's info blog people
Cell broadband processor has 9 cores........
uses Nvidia designed graffics card
256 main Ram
256 Gddr3 Ram
simply put i think the person that started this is a Fu@@ing idiot just go read the spec.
the processor is 3 times the cores of the Xbo360 on top of that Nvidia graffix card way better that ATI that used in the Xbox360 C'mon you idiot. you spend to much time on Wikipedia or something
This was just the article I was looking for
This compares the cell & xenon
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf/pages/multicor...
xdr ram
http://www.rambus.com/us/products/xdr_xdr2/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDR_DRAM
xbox ram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3
Take apart both console and report back
Owning both the 360 and PS3, I feel that this may be true due to so many games I have owned and played on both systems, seems that the 360 is outperforming the PS3, this is no suprise as I have seen this happened in the past with other consoles, Ahem 3DO, a console ahead of its time, however PS3 is a great console beautifully designed and reliable not that this is why we buy consoles, we buy consoles, for gameplay, price, and titles. I have ordered gta4 for xbox360 due to the DLC, Sony fix up and show me the happy days i had with ps1 and 2..
After reading this whole thing Jim is the only one who actually spoke with some REAL technical knowledge, how much is true remains to be seen. however everyone else seems to be singing their own praises of hype for the ps3 and no real technical support other than the same old cell processor hype. just saying that jim sounds like the only one who actually knows what he's talking about and not just reading a company tech sheet.
Does microsoft pay people to spread misinformation? Sure seems so. The "275 mil vs 500 mil" thing is complete BS, simply because that comparison is made on the basis of PS3 using its minimum processing power; only its primary processing unit, instead of all 8.
Designing games to use all of those cores effectively on the PS3 hardware is more difficult than coding them for the Xbox360 hardware. And so far no games have even used the PS3 to its full potential. The only reason some games seem to run worse on the PS3 is because they design them for the Xbox hardware, and then directly port them to PS3; not only the code being unoptimized for the ps3 hardware, but it also doesn't even make use of its full processing potential (i.e. never using all 8 cores).
And the games that were originally made for the PS3 (ex: DMC4/Burnout) do run better than their Xbox360 versions, so there goes the whole arguement.
Give us concrete, definite proof from two versions of the same game, both optimized to take full advantage of the processing power of each system (Xbox360 and PS3), compared side to side; which will be the better performer then? Until you do that, don't bother trying to fool people with this X360 fanboy'ish crap.
@ Jim Slater:
Z0mG!!! iT cOmEs wIt a hEaDsEt?!?! i g0tta gEt 0nE r1ght now!! 0mgz!!
...dumbass
@article:
dude you really don't know what your talking about. The PS3's processor is capable of processing 2 TeraFLOPS, while the 360 can only handle half of this (1 TeraFLOPS) max. and there are so many other points i could make that im not going to waste any more time. do some real freakin research next time and stop being so biased if your going to write an article.
I think the author is confused and got the consoles mixed up.
cuz the ps3 has 8 cell processors not 6, and there hasn't even been a game out yet that used all the cores. (FFXIII will be the first.... supposedly....)
and ps3 runs 1080p smoothly @ 60fps.... iono what that guy is talking about...
and if XBOX is so superior to the ps3.... why is it keep suiciding... aka red ring of death...
this guy is full of shit.... had a good laugh reading it tho. lol
This is going to be a longstanding arguement. The key things for anyone looking to purchase one system or the other to ask themselves are:
1: What system am I used to (Xbox or PS2)
2: Which system will provide the exclusives I'm looking for?
3: Which one has the out of box features I am looking for?
4: How much do I want to pay for my next-gen system?
Check out the news and forums on www.us.playstation.com you will find that developers are moving to fully support the functions of the PS3, including online chat. The PS3 supports the function, it's the developers that aren't utilizing the function. So don't blame the system.
It's a toss-up right now between the systems. One of my best friends has a 360, I have a PS3, the games look, and run, practically identical on both systems. The PS3 uses new technology, developers have admitted in GameInformer and Official Playstation Magazine that they need ot get used to the new hardware, as it is a different programming environment than the 360, as they are using virtually the same environment as the original Xbox.
Only those who have 1080p televisions, and are HARDCORE visual effects addicts will truly see the difference between 1080p and 720p.
I like both systems, and hope to soon own both, as they have great exclusives out, and coming out, for both systems. I like them both, because I've played both, how many of those who are cutting down the 360 actually played it, same for the PS3 dirt slingers? If you don't like one system, then don't play it, and stay away from the PS3 sites.
you write like a jackass. stop putting words in capital letters, and perhaps your writing will allow me to read it without wanting to gouge my eyes out. that is all
OH!
I have a PS3 and love it, dvd's, brd's, photo slide shows, LINUX, EMU's, optical surround, video chat and I don't have to have a break out box and if I had an XBOX I would be able to play HALO.
HMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!
Sounds like everyone here has buyers regret.
Point #1 this is like MAC vs PC The XBox was designed from the ground up to do one thing very well PLAY GAMES. The PS3 was designed to be a ALL IN ONE do everything set top box.
Point #2 product loyalty (or hatred of microsoft)
Point #3 could not get our hands on a wII
Point #4 get over it because the mine is bigger than yours should be reserved for the PC
Also, in terms of Online performance, the Xbox 360 is infinitely better than the Playstation 3.
Just consider that sports games like John Madden Football 2008 do NOT let you talk online while you are playing on the Playstation 3. That SUCKS.
Being able to say, "HaHA...I scored a touchdown on you!" is AWESOME!!!
Xbox 360 let's you do that...Playstation 3...DOESN'T!
But, when you play all of those sports games, and ANY game on the Xbox 360, you can talk to the person you are playing with online, while you are playing!
Only a very small percentage of Playstation 3 games let you do that. the reason for that is because the PS3 does NOT come with a headset to talk online with, but the Xbox 360 DOES come with a headset to talk online with. That's why developers have the attitude that they feel obligated to support that feature for the Xbox 360, but not for the Playstation 3.
And consider games like Virtua Fighter 5, Virtua Tennis 3, Tony Hawk Skating, ect...
VF5 looks better on the Xbox 360, plays better on the Xbox 360, and it includes online play. The Playstation 3 version doesn't include any form of online play at all. The same can be said for Virtua Tennis 3, any others.
Xbox 360 is a better game system. That's why the games are always rated with better scores on the Xbox 360.
This article is 100% correct.
I know for a fact that the Playstation 3 originally was supposed to have two Cell CPU processors. I read an article where Microsoft actually thanked Sony for removing the other Cell CPU, because they said that was what made the PS3 hardware so difficult for developers to work with, which is what caused all of the developers to make the Xbox 360 their Lead Platform, instead of the Playstation 3.
And Pill, the Xbox 360 has RAM advantages over the Playstation 3 in more than one way.
For example, the Xbox 360 Operating System is much more efficient; it uses only 32MB of CPU RAM. The PS3 Operating System uses 96MB of RAM at a time, which is a BIG waste!
And guess what: The reason for that big waste is specifically because the Playstation 3 Operating System includes the Web Browser. Microsoft realizes that if you want to surf the Internet, then people like to use a PC, definitely NOT a Dreamcast or Playstation 3.
As a result, Playstation 3 really has only 416MB of RAM to work with, while the Xbox 360 has 480MB of RAM to work with.
PS3's Non-Unified 50/50 RAM design for the CPU/GPU means that there will almost always be RAM that is being wasted. There will always be times when one or the other has RAM that is not being used, but could be used to help the other one.
But with Xbox 360 it isn't like that. The Unified RAM means that RAM is never wasted. That is why Xbox 360 games have such smooth framerates. There are so many games where the Xbox 360 versions have smooth framerates, but the PS3 versions are just plain choppy.
Also, the Xbox 360 has 10MB of the very advanced eDRAM. Not even Windows Vista uses eDRAM. That is something that the Longhorn operating system will use. So, I definitely agree that the Xbox 360 is much more ahead of its time than the PS3 is.
The parallel processing development environment is just not a good environment for videogame development. That's why the Playstation 3 is destined to fail, just like the Sega Saturn.
Xbox 360 is the number one system for great games. It has games in every genre: Puzzle, Party, Strategy, Music, Sports, Shooters, RPG, Racing, Simulation, Fighting. Everything.
Playstation 3 is missing games in key genres:
An example is Real-Time Strategy. Xbox 360 has awesome games like Command & Conquer 3, and Battle for Mid-Earth 2. And there are seven more RTS games on the way for Xbox 360 in 2008.
But Playstation 3 has been available for over a year and still has zero games in the Real-Time Strategy genre. What's worse is that there is only one Real-Time Strategy game planned for the PS3 in 2008. The others are being released for Xbox 360 and PC, but not for Playstation 3.
This site is highly Xbox driven. PS3 RAM is split, but never should a dev develope a game too much beyond 50/50. Like 400mb/100mb minus 25mb for the OS. that would mean the game looks great but sounds like compressed shit and controls like Tomb raider 1... also GPU RAM can access CPU RAM, but why would a dev want to take away from CPU RAM. As far a Polys Per Sec... Xbox CPU runs at 700Mhz with all 512mb RAM. PS3 runs at 3.2Ghz with thier CPU and 700Mhz with GPU, thats as fast as your Home computer....... Jackass.
Learn to speak english idiot, and yes 360's suck. Long live PS3.
The 360 is just an overhyped,flawed video game system which is guaranteed to break at anytime.....
stupid ps3 fanboy..now u fanboy make games for ps3..we see daily on internet some one other says ps3sucks...one dev can be wrong how some millions...stop it accept it fan boys ps3 sucks..it is adelay station now sux station..
I own a PS3 and my cousin has a 360. There is no way a 360 could beat the PS3. The PS3 has much more to give than the 360. Besides the number of sales on the 360 only beats the PS3 because it has longer on the market. FACE the reality 360 fans your system sucks. Long live the PS3
This whole article is inaccurate. PS3 is able to have the same or more amount of polygons than the 360 and the cell processor is able to use all 512mb of ram. the ram is just split into 2 different types and will become more efficient when developers give specific jobs to the 2 ram sources. the 360 has only one type of ram is quite limited in the stuff that it can do. just wait and see. Also that guy was nearly wrong in everything he said because the PS3 was originally designed to have the nvidia RSX gpu and cell processor from the beginning. Sony never changed their design plans and the 360 design is not superior in any way. Both designs have their own strengths and weaknesses.
ALL IN ALL EVERY THING MAY BE TRUE IN WHAT HE STATED BUT THEY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THE X-BOX 360 HAS NO WEB BROWSER DO YOU THINK THAT HAD ANGTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE PS3 ONLY SENDS TWO THRED SIGNALS DAH!! BESIDES THAT MOST PEOPLE CHOOSE THE PS-3 OVER THE X-BOX 360 ITS WHY I DID I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE X-BOX 360 DOSENT HAVE ONE SINCE IT CAN PROCESS SO MUCH BETTER DID MICROSOFT ROB PEOPLE FOR 400.00 DOLLARS YES!!!!!!!
Let me just start by saying I play PS3 and have nothing bad to say about the Xbox other then its not the console for me. I would just like to say that if you put as much time and effort in your gaming as you did in putting down the PS3, you could maybe be the best Xbox gamer in the world, but hey I play PS3 so what do I know...
All I can say is LOL. I have both consoles and my PS3 kicks ass over 360 in more ways than one. Cheers.
You fan boys are so boring, I thought I was going to get a properly thought out discussion and instead ended up reading a bunch of badly thought out fan boy drivel.
read the damn comments on the source page, this is bullcrap.
Amen to that.. :)
Post new comment