[QUOTE="Persistantthug"][QUOTE="mike_on_mic"]The PS3 is more powerful than the XBOX360 The FSB of the XBOX360 is 21.6 Gbs, pretty fast, the PS3, though the architecture of it doesn't have anything what could be called a FSB, the connection between the Cell and the memory is the main point of contention when we look at a FSB and that is 25.6Gbs, this is 15% increase in speed, over 1 second that isn't much but over the the period of a minute that is a lot more data being transferred between the process and the memory. The speed, the number of GigaFLOPS, well, singles the XBOX360 is about 96 GigaFLOPs, the PS3, 179.2 GigaFLOPS (there is some debate mainly since Sony likes to tout 256GFLOPS, but as the usuable number of SPEs is not 8 but is 7 this reduces the total, the Cell is capable of that, the one in the PS3 isn't. But that said, this is a 46% speed increase. Double, which isn't common in games but it still a measurable counter. The XBOX360 57.6 GFLOPS and the PS3 is 25GFLOPS, so that is a speed increase for the 360 of 56%. So looking at these figures. I would say that the PS3 is about 17% more powerful than the XBOX360 on all numbers stated. You can quote any other numbers you like, but as far as the CPUs are concerned, the PS3 is more powerful, graphics, I haven't performed those calculations but certainly will if neeed, the XBOX360 graphics is more powerful, but that said, the PS3 can use the cell to perform these functions so it is more difficult to compare overal graphics but direct comparions it can be made. My opinion is the PS3 is more powerful, the cell processor hands down hands the Xenon it's lunch and says go home you aren't even a contender. But even from looking from a stand poing of what each is capable of, I think we have yet to see the PS3 hit its straps, the XBOX360, I feel we are getting close. It explains why Alan Wake looks so good, but only runs at 540p, I am sure PC gamers have seen that same effect when dialing their settings, boost up all the effects and turn down the res, and it can render so much faster. I still don't think we have seen the max the XBOX360 can produce, but I think we are closer to that point than the PS3. That is my opinion take it or leave it.WilliamRLBaker
Most of what you are saying is logical and reasonable, unfortunately the truth seems to hurt feelings.
But your point about Alan Wake is what I've been saying for this whole time....If developers are having to dial back the resolution with the game in order to compensate for other detail, then that means the system nearing its ceiling.
On the PS3, they are barely just figuring out how to program for the thing.
I guess truth is hard to swallow.....I guess.
*shrug*
and yet you've throughout this thread ignored every one that has proven you wrong with pure logic or actual physical proof..and you've yet to post a single shred of physical proof your self or even correct logic on what you say is true. but I will say it again. When the 360 outpaces the ps3 in sub hd games, then you can make such statements till then right now its like 70-61...therefor the ps3 is inferior.I have answered reasonably on many of the points, WilliamRLBaker.
I explained to you that RAGE= RDR = GTA 4 = 2007.....its very understandable, logical, and very much true in basic premise regarding resolution....very reasonable.....yet, on this issue, you've seemingly refused reason.
We all know developers didn't know how to program for the PS3, so why do you want to keep quoting Beyond 3D res. specs based on multiple games from 2006-2008?
You're doing exactly what Vaderhater acused me of doing....trying to cheat...Only in this case, it's cheating reasonablility.
Log in to comment