Can someone explain why the PS3 is more powerful?

it isnt more powerful!

didnt you realise that only cows say that??

its more powerful in theory.

Now if only developers can actually take the time and utilize it.

They can't unfortunately cause the big money is making a 360 version as well.

The ps3 was suppose to run on CELL as the primary GPU. But they stuck a Nvidia GPU in there too. So it is like having 2 GPUs. Plus 256MB of the whole 512MB is dedicated RAMBUS which is faster. The larger storage will help but no biggy.

The only down side I can see if the slow spinning BR. I read some where that since MS released early, Sony was playing catchup and had to release their ps3 prematurely before it was fully baked. Thus you got the higher launch price and slower spinning (plus more expensive) BR drive. Allow the software (called EDGE) was behind schedule and released after the launch.

Is in-order processor better than out-of-order processor for graphics?

The GPU's are roughly equal. PS3 has a more powerful GPU, but the 360 has a more elegant design. The RAM makes the 360 have a slight edge, though the PS3's faster. The CPU part is where you really couldn't be any more wrong. The PS3's CPU design isn't like that of a traditional CPU.

There abosultely no doubt in anyone's mind, that the PS3 is a more powerful system. The hardware shows it. But its laso a much harder system to squeeze out performance out of it. Its possible that when the PS3 is beginning to peak its graphics-to-development costs that no one will care since people will be talking about the next generation of systems.

they both have the same amount of ram it is just the 360 is shared ram.

the cell can be used as a gpu or cpu funtions so if done right the ps 3 gpu the cell will make up for it. the cell can do sound,animatio,lighting ect.

did you know that ports and mutiplats use only one spe (while 360 using all three cores) 6 not touched yet. uncharted uses onlt 2 spe's so imagine using 4 of them.

no one has used the cell that much.

Teh Cell

IBM designed the CPU for all 3 consoles (wii, 360, ps3)

IBM designed the CPU for all 3 consoles (wii, 360, ps3)

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

Floppy_Jim

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

Floppy_Jim

So your arguement is that since the PS3 has better-looking games it has better graphics?

First of all, the PS3 does NOT have better looking games. In your opinion they look better, but that isn't a fact. In my opinion, Gears of War and Mass Effect look better than any other console games. Does my opinion prove the 360 is more powerful? No, use facts in your arguement.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Lastly, the cell has not been able to work with the gpu yet to produce graphics. Sony says that it is possible to do this, but its hard to believe since Sony themselves abandoned the Cell.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

pro-nathan-07

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

pro-nathan-07

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

GARRYTH

Actaually Assasin's Creed has much better animations than Uncharted. I really hate to admit this because i think Uncharted is a much better game, but nothing on consoles compares to AC's animations.

PS3 isn't much more powerfull, its been said the PS3 can handle more things/effects on screen..over the 360, but all in all, its a wash.

another thing, if the GPU can be programmed properly with CELL, i would expect visuals that surpase what the 360 can do, nothing major tho.

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Actaually Assasin's Creed has much better animations than Uncharted. I really hate to admit this because i think Uncharted is a much better game, but nothing on consoles compares to AC's animations.

Uncharted one ups it with, WAY MORE REALISTIC facial expressions and overall characteristics for certain objects...not seen on any 360 game with that level of realism.

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Actaually Assasin's Creed has much better animations than Uncharted. I really hate to admit this because i think Uncharted is a much better game, but nothing on consoles compares to AC's animations.

Uncharted one ups it with, WAY MORE REALISTIC facial expressions and overall characteristics for certain objects...not seen on any 360 game with that level of realism, IMO.

While AC animations are good, Uncharted has more variety with them and overall looks more impressive, IMO.

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

GARRYTH

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

pro-nathan-07

the uncharted devs said there would be noticable differences if a 360 version were to be made, PS3 version has basically no load times..with very few texture loading issues.

the game is heavily optimized around the 360 hardware...i would expect anything more better with the 360's hardware, IMO.

I used to try to explain why a console was more powerful than the next. After a year or so I got tired of it. Instead just look at the final results.

Who cares about which one is more powerful. As long as the final products look and play amazing, it really doesn't matter.

[QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

GARRYTH

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

Developers say all kinds of stuf. Epic said that Gears of War could not be done on the PS3. Valve said the PS3 was a "failure." I don't believe any of that stuff. Base your arguements off the hardware, and not what developers say.

[QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

GARRYTH

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

Developers say all kinds of stuf. Epic said that Gears of War could not be done on the PS3. Valve said the PS3 was a "failre." I don't believe any of that stuff. Base your arguements off the hardware, and not what developers say.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

So your arguement is that since the PS3 has better-looking games it has better graphics?

First of all, the PS3 does NOT have better looking games. In your opinion they look better, but that isn't a fact. In my opinion, Gears of War and Mass Effect look better than any other console games. Does my opinion prove the 360 is more powerful? No, use facts in your arguement.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Lastly, the cell has not been able to work with the gpu yet to produce graphics. Sony says that it is possible to do this, but its hard to believe since Sony themselves abandoned the Cell.

The majority of review sites say Uncharted and GT5 are the console graphics kings. To be completely honest, the only people I have seen disagree with this are SW Lemmings. It's only 1 year into the PS3's life cycle and it has already beaten the 360 in the graphics department.

And many devs seem to think the PS3 is more powerful and has potential for better graphics, eg the Red Faction developers.

[QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

Developers say all kinds of stuf. Epic said that Gears of War could not be done on the PS3. Valve said the PS3 was a "failure." I don't believe any of that stuff. Base your arguements off the hardware, and not what developers say.

QFT.

Devs do whatever they can to sell there games, even if it means to downplay the opposite console.

Nothing has come out or has even been shown that anything on ps3 looks better than any 360 game, it's the same every gen, there may be some minor differences but nothing to brag about

all this bluray and cell crap is just that

nothing sony has shown or come up with proves any different

[QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

Forensic-Klown

Actaually Assasin's Creed has much better animations than Uncharted. I really hate to admit this because i think Uncharted is a much better game, but nothing on consoles compares to AC's animations.

Uncharted one ups it with, WAY MORE REALISTIC facial expressions and overall characteristics for certain objects...not seen on any 360 game with that level of realism, IMO.

While AC animations are good, Uncharted has more variety with them and overall looks more impressive, IMO.

Realistic Facial Expressions?

Mass Effect takes the cake there. Hell, I'd even say Half-life 2 has facial expressions on par with Uncharted, and lets not forget how the characters in Uncharted look like plastic!

Well The PS3 has higher shader proformance, higher dot product proformance, it has roughly double the floating point calculations of xbox360 thus is able to calculate more complex geometry, physics and lighting and deliver it alot faster than the xbox360 could...part of that is the benifit to RSX the other majority of that is a benifit of the Cell because of it's impressive power to crunch numbers.

So to answer your question, "explain why the PS3 is more powerful?" besically because of the Cell CPU.

Some Exclusive games built from the ground up specifically for the PS3 hardware simply would not be the same if attempted on the xbox360.

[QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

Floppy_Jim

So your arguement is that since the PS3 has better-looking games it has better graphics?

First of all, the PS3 does NOT have better looking games. In your opinion they look better, but that isn't a fact. In my opinion, Gears of War and Mass Effect look better than any other console games. Does my opinion prove the 360 is more powerful? No, use facts in your arguement.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Lastly, the cell has not been able to work with the gpu yet to produce graphics. Sony says that it is possible to do this, but its hard to believe since Sony themselves abandoned the Cell.

The majority of review sites say Uncharted and GT5 are the console graphics kings. To be completely honest, the only people I have seen disagree with this are SW Lemmings. It's only 1 year into the PS3's life cycle and it has already beaten the 360 in the graphics department.

And many devs seem to think the PS3 is more powerful and has potential for better graphics, eg the Red Faction developers.

First off how can a race-car game be the grapihcs "king." You can't compare a race-car game to any other type of game. Secondly what makes Uncharted so good? The textures are mediocre and the other effects are about average. The only reason people say this game looks amzing is because its set in a tropical island, and people love tropical islands. Look at a game like Gears of War. Its set in ag ray and black post-apoctalyptic world. Of course people will perfer Uncharted's colors.

[QUOTE="Forensic-Klown"][QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Actaually Assasin's Creed has much better animations than Uncharted. I really hate to admit this because i think Uncharted is a much better game, but nothing on consoles compares to AC's animations.

Uncharted one ups it with, WAY MORE REALISTIC facial expressions and overall characteristics for certain objects...not seen on any 360 game with that level of realism, IMO.

While AC animations are good, Uncharted has more variety with them and overall looks more impressive, IMO.

Realistic Facial Expressions?

Mass Effect takes the cake there. Hell, I'd even say Half-life 2 has facial expressions on par with Uncharted, and lets not forget how the characters in Uncharted look like plastic!

Whats plastic looks got to do with facial expressions and how it works?

in that case, Mass effect looks like clay.

Mass effects so called FACIAL expressions were WEAK, IMO...in uncharted characters looked like real people when they talked..like those words were really being said, ALA a movie.

HL2 having better than uncharted?

sounds like fanboy talk, your not a fanboy...OR ARE YOU?

lol

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

True, there is no game out now that could be done on only 1 console... That is so true.... but I am sure the 360 will burn down (or burn out) before a ps3 does when you are having fun and gaming for many many hrs straight. Care to explain why 360s are still frying which 65nm cpu? maybe it is more the 90nm GPU and not entirely their CPU causing it?

The only edges 360 got, are the following:
1. Easier to port between PC and 360 since the software tools are similar.
2. ATI GPU is known for better AA effect.
3. LIVE (but that is software and not hardware but I stick LIVE in there too as an edge)

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Exactly. There is no game out now that could be done on only one console. And you know what? There never will be!

The two consoles are extremely close in power, with a slight edge to the Xbox 360, but the difference is really minor.

True, there is no game out now that could be done on only 1 console... That is so true.... but I am sure the 360 will burn down (or burn out) before a ps3 does when you are having fun and gaming for many many hrs straight. Care to explain why 360s are still frying with 65nm cpu out? maybe it is more the 90nm GPU and not entirely their CPU causing it?

The only edges 360 got, are the following:
1. Easier to port between PC and 360 since the software tools are similar.
2. ATI GPU is known for better AA effect.
3. LIVE (but that is software and not hardware but I stick LIVE in there too as an edge)

the x360 is more powerful, because it runs on hopes and prayers.

If you chant "NO RROD, NO RROD, NO RROD" while playing the GPU experiences a 10-15% increase in performance.

that is, until God smites your machine and brings the red plague upon your household.

Then Microsoft becomes your new God, for they are super nice and will fix something for free that never should have broke in the first place.

Well The PS3 has higher shader proformance, higher dot product proformance, it has roughly double the floating point calculations of xbox360 thus is able to calculate more complex geometry, physics and lighting and deliver it alot faster than the xbox360 could...part of that is the benifit to RSX the other majority of that is a benifit of the Cell because of it's impressive power to crunch numbers.

So to answer your question, "explain why the PS3 is more powerful?" besically because of the Cell CPU.

Some Exclusive games built from the ground up specifically for the PS3 hardware simply would not be the same if attempted on the xbox360.

killadread

There are major flaws in your arguement. In a nutshell, today's processors are way too powerful for games. The processor is never the limitation ecxept at 800x600 resolution. The Xenos gpu has a much higher fill-rate than the RSX, that almost directly translates to more graphical power. Also this Cell performance is all HYOPTHETICAL, no one has been able to do it, and i highyl doubt anyone will, especially since Sony dropped all Cell support.

Games on the ps3 tend to have a better draw distance. The background graphic looks also as good as the foreground graphics.

But games on the 360 tend to have really sharp foreground while the background is blurred beyond recognition.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

So your arguement is that since the PS3 has better-looking games it has better graphics?

First of all, the PS3 does NOT have better looking games. In your opinion they look better, but that isn't a fact. In my opinion, Gears of War and Mass Effect look better than any other console games. Does my opinion prove the 360 is more powerful? No, use facts in your arguement.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Lastly, the cell has not been able to work with the gpu yet to produce graphics. Sony says that it is possible to do this, but its hard to believe since Sony themselves abandoned the Cell.

As much as I love ME, I cant agree with anyone that says its the most incredible looking game out there with all the awful framerate and texture pop-in...

[QUOTE="killadread"]

Well The PS3 has higher shader proformance, higher dot product proformance, it has roughly double the floating point calculations of xbox360 thus is able to calculate more complex geometry, physics and lighting and deliver it alot faster than the xbox360 could...part of that is the benifit to RSX the other majority of that is a benifit of the Cell because of it's impressive power to crunch numbers.

So to answer your question, "explain why the PS3 is more powerful?" besically because of the Cell CPU.

Some Exclusive games built from the ground up specifically for the PS3 hardware simply would not be the same if attempted on the xbox360.

jbz7890

There are major flaws in your arguement. In a nutshell, today's processors are way too powerful for games. The processor is never the limitation ecxept at 800x600 resolution. The Xenos gpu has a much higher fill-rate than the RSX, that almost directly translates to more graphical power. Also this Cell performance is all HYOPTHETICAL, no one has been able to do it, and i highyl doubt anyone will, especially since Sony dropped all Cell support.

People having explained it to you. But you just won't accept it. Maybe you should change your topic title?

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"][QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

So your arguement is that since the PS3 has better-looking games it has better graphics?

First of all, the PS3 does NOT have better looking games. In your opinion they look better, but that isn't a fact. In my opinion, Gears of War and Mass Effect look better than any other console games. Does my opinion prove the 360 is more powerful? No, use facts in your arguement.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Lastly, the cell has not been able to work with the gpu yet to produce graphics. Sony says that it is possible to do this, but its hard to believe since Sony themselves abandoned the Cell.

The majority of review sites say Uncharted and GT5 are the console graphics kings. To be completely honest, the only people I have seen disagree with this are SW Lemmings. It's only 1 year into the PS3's life cycle and it has already beaten the 360 in the graphics department.

And many devs seem to think the PS3 is more powerful and has potential for better graphics, eg the Red Faction developers.

First off how can a race-car game be the grapihcs "king." You can't compare a race-car game to any other type of game. Secondly what makes Uncharted so good? The textures are mediocre and the other effects are about average. The only reason people say this game looks amzing is because its set in a tropical island, and people love tropical islands. Look at a game like Gears of War. Its set in ag ray and black post-apoctalyptic world. Of course people will perfer Uncharted's colors.

You're kind of proving my point- you're a Lemming who thinks Gears is better looking than Uncharted, which is fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But I personally think Uncharted looks better, I wouldn't call the textures "mediocre". And textures are not the only thing that decide how good a game looks.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

So your arguement is that since the PS3 has better-looking games it has better graphics?

First of all, the PS3 does NOT have better looking games. In your opinion they look better, but that isn't a fact. In my opinion, Gears of War and Mass Effect look better than any other console games. Does my opinion prove the 360 is more powerful? No, use facts in your arguement.

As for the PS3 having faster RAM, speed has little to do with its performance, its all about quanity, and the 360 is able to allocate the RAM where its needed much better.

Lastly, the cell has not been able to work with the gpu yet to produce graphics. Sony says that it is possible to do this, but its hard to believe since Sony themselves abandoned the Cell.

Mass Effect?? Are you kidding me? That game was a crap glitch fest with subpar graphics. I dont see what you guys love about the game graphicaly and i beat it!! Gears looks great no doubt but Uncharted looks better!! I doubt GEARS2 will look better than MGS4 or KZ2 graphically so i think your wrong. The 360 is going to be three years old and its getting beat up graphically exclusive wise fro the PS3 so far!! if you owned a PS3 you wouldnt be saying RFOM2, GT5, MGS4, KZ2 looked worse than ANY 360 exclusive..

Sorry, but GEARS still is the best looking 360 game and thats pathetic imo as a 360 owner.. I want to see a big leap in ANY new game and its not there yet!! im praying GEARS2 makes a RFOM2 type leap!!

[QUOTE="killadread"]

Well The PS3 has higher shader proformance, higher dot product proformance, it has roughly double the floating point calculations of xbox360 thus is able to calculate more complex geometry, physics and lighting and deliver it alot faster than the xbox360 could...part of that is the benifit to RSX the other majority of that is a benifit of the Cell because of it's impressive power to crunch numbers.

So to answer your question, "explain why the PS3 is more powerful?" besically because of the Cell CPU.

Some Exclusive games built from the ground up specifically for the PS3 hardware simply would not be the same if attempted on the xbox360.

jbz7890

There are major flaws in your arguement. In a nutshell, today's processors are way too powerful for games. The processor is never the limitation ecxept at 800x600 resolution. The Xenos gpu has a much higher fill-rate than the RSX, that almost directly translates to more graphical power. Also this Cell performance is all HYOPTHETICAL, no one has been able to do it, and i highyl doubt anyone will, especially since Sony dropped all Cell support.

[QUOTE="Forensic-Klown"][QUOTE="jbz7890"][QUOTE="GARRYTH"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]

The PS3 has the same amount of RAM, it just isn't unified. But apparently it's a lot faster than the 360's RAM. It does indeed have an inferior GPU, but the Cell chip somehow works with the GPU to produce better graphics than the 360, eg Uncharted, GT5 etc..

I have a fairly basic understanding of all this, but I think that's all correct.

jbz7890

Actaually Assasin's Creed has much better animations than Uncharted. I really hate to admit this because i think Uncharted is a much better game, but nothing on consoles compares to AC's animations.

Uncharted one ups it with, WAY MORE REALISTIC facial expressions and overall characteristics for certain objects...not seen on any 360 game with that level of realism, IMO.

While AC animations are good, Uncharted has more variety with them and overall looks more impressive, IMO.

Realistic Facial Expressions?

Mass Effect takes the cake there. Hell, I'd even say Half-life 2 has facial expressions on par with Uncharted, and lets not forget how the characters in Uncharted look like plastic!

When is art style a minus? Look at WOW. Look at TF2.

its more powerful in theory.

Now if only developers can actually take the time and utilize it.

They can't unfortunately cause the big money is making a 360 version as well.

-GhostMLD-

Yep, the only developer that I think will take advantage of it will be Sony. 3rd party always has to keep in mind X360 or even sometimes the Wii when developing games. Only the few exclusives like FF13 and MGS4 should take advantage of it. That's why Sony's tites this year and next will be very important.