Can we come to an agreement that PS3 is 25 - 50% more powerful?

hahahahahaha WHAT!?! seriously? how do threads like this not get instalocked.

hahahahahaha WHAT!?! seriously? how do threads like this not get instalocked.

TheEroica

I don't know; they should be.

Back on topic. Crysis>>>>Every PS3 exclusive out there.

/thread

If there is any difference at all, I'd judge it to be no more than 4-7% in raw power.

3KindgomsRandy

On another topic someone chaffed at the idea that the PS3 was 3 times more powerful than the XBOX 360......rightfully so.

The PS3 is certainly not 3 times more powerful. For honesty's sake, I'd even like to volunteer that the PS3 isn't twice as powerful. But seeing how the XBOX 360 is having a hard time rendering its own 2010 exclusives in high definition whereas the PS3 isn't, I think its fair to say the PS3 is at least 25% more powerful, and possibly as high as 50% more.

Can we agree to that?

Persistantthug

DO people even understand what they are saying when the ps3 is x% stronger then a 360?

Then why does RDR look better on the 360? The PS3 can't run it,

I don't actually believe that because one game looks better, that a console is "more powerful". But that's just an example of how... well... you can't just pick an example or 2 and prove something. Find some facts to back up numbers like 25%-50%.

]

So no. we can't come to an agreement, certainly not out of information i've seen.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="DraugenCP"]

Which one is technically more powerful is irrelevant. It all comes down to which system actually has the better looking games.

It's like those Xbox fanboys the previous generation, who boasted having the most powerful system, while it took them years to come up with a game as good-looking as the Gamecube exclusive Star Fox Adventures (which was released in 2002!), and some Gamecube multiplats even had way shorter loading times. It all comes down to how much power the devs are actually able to cram out of the machine.

DraugenCP

What are you talking about man? Star Fox adventure looked great. But nothing close to HaloCE, Halo2, Ninja Gaiden, Dead or alive 3, Chaos Theory, etc...

Halo looked laughable compared to Star Fox, and I'm not even mentioning games like Metroid Prime 1 & 2, which were top notch graphically and beat anything the Xbox offered in terms of artistic design. The first thing that downright beat SFA to me was the single player campaign of Conker: Live & Reloaded. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some Ninty fanboy - I had an Xbox and loved it to death - but it never managed to prove its apparent technological advantage from what I've played.

More like 5%-10%, at most.

50% are you joking
25% maybe...probably less

I don't understand why so many twelve year olds storm these forums not knowing anything about specs and claiming the PS3 to be so powerful.

GPU: Xbox 360 wins here
CPU: PS3 wins here however thanks to the cell if developed for properly games can come out looking a bit better then xbox 360 game

however most multiplat developers don't take advantage of the PS3's extra power which is why most multiplats look better on the xbox 360. It also has to due with the fact that the 360 is a easier console to develop for.

PS3 may be more powerful but it's really not going to be anything that noticeable when compared to the xbox 360. You'd have to take two games running on the same engine and really compare the differences. Take Killzone 2 and Gears of war 2 for example and you'll get a better comparison at what the two consoles can really do. Killzone 2 might have the edge but it's a very very slight one at that.

2 entirely independant corporations with different methods could not release 2 consoles a year apart from each other and have them 100% identical in power. So it's more powerful by about....8 or 9%. Yes, I did pull that figure from a deep dark recess as opposed to any extensive research.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PS3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Xbox 360>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wii

PS3 is better at some things and the 360 is better at others...

evidence in 360 is mutliplats

evidence in ps3 is exclusives

Whrere did you pull 25% out of? You know that 90% of percentages are made up on the spot, right?

How did you come to these percentages?

To be entirely honest, I don't see a difference between the two machines besides the button schemes.

They seem to be identical, with each one possesing something a little bit better than the other console has.

Sure why not, unless there is evidence to the contrary

PS3 is better at some things and the 360 is better at others...

evidence in 360 is mutliplats

evidence in ps3 is exclusives

KBFloYd

Final Fantasy 13 kills that theory though.

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

PS3 is better at some things and the 360 is better at others...

evidence in 360 is mutliplats

evidence in ps3 is exclusives

Persistantthug

Final Fantasy 13 kills that theory though.

[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]

PS3 is better at some things and the 360 is better at others...

evidence in 360 is mutliplats

evidence in ps3 is exclusives

navyguy21

Final Fantasy 13 kills that theory though.

But can ps3 do da foilage?

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

Final Fantasy 13 kills that theory though.

jyoung312

[QUOTE="jyoung312"][QUOTE="navyguy21"] That was poor compression, not hardware power ;)navyguy21

I don't understand....

PS3 has 512MB of ram too, and developers are using it, right?

Nahhh, I don't think anyone knows at this point.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="jyoung312"] yes and most times that 360 gets better multiplat version it's bc the 360 is the lead version and ps3 is a portPersistantthug

I don't understand....

PS3 has 512MB of ram too, and developers are using it, right?

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="jyoung312"] yes and most times that 360 gets better multiplat version it's bc the 360 is the lead version and ps3 is a portPersistantthug

I don't understand....

PS3 has 512MB of ram too, and developers are using it, right?

They are roughly equal, only cows think its vastly superior. The people who made the things said they were equal, so it comes down to developer talent, and i dont think lemmings would argue that sony has the better devs. And THAT is where the great looking games come from, lets give the devs the credit, not Sony or the PS3.navyguy21

Bingo!! Agreed!

...also those Sony devs better be talented because it's pretty much well known that developing for the PS3 is like going to the dentist to get 3 or 4 root canals. Also as others have stated many times MS does not spend thetime and energy in resources and finances to support a 360-focused ground up engine for their devs. I'm prertty confident that given the same develoment time as for UC2 and KZ2 for example that the 360 would put out similiar if not BETTER results.

Then cows will say, "Well look at Remedy and Alan Wake. They had 5 years it still doesn't look as good as uncharted." As much as cows want to deny it, Alan Wake is doing more technically than UC2. I honestly think that the PS3 would struggle big time with that game. Also cows can't make this argument because the only way to make a true comparison is to have the same developers (Naughty Dog and Guerrila), resources, finances, etc...with the same development time on the 360 to see what they could do. My guess is that the result would be similar if not better than the PS3.

So to answer the OP's question...NO. In fact I think it's the other way around with the 360 being possibly 10-15% more powerful than the PS3. It might even be more because the truth is that the PS3 hardware is asymmetrical which tends to "fight" devs rather than supporting them.

Cows really need to stop with the PS3 is more powerful because of games like UC2. Yes it looks good but it's not the second coming. It's as if cows need to hold onto UC2 to justify the so-called power of the PS3. Cows constantly brag about UC2 and feel safe because they know deep down that a true comparison of the same game with the same devs will pretty much never be done unless something drastic happens where Naughty Dog feels the need to further spread their wings.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]They are roughly equal, only cows think its vastly superior. The people who made the things said they were equal, so it comes down to developer talent, and i dont think lemmings would argue that sony has the better devs. And THAT is where the great looking games come from, lets give the devs the credit, not Sony or the PS3.T-razor1

Bingo!! Agreed!

...also those Sony devs better be talented because it's pretty much well known that developing for the PS3 is like going to the dentist to get 3 or 4 root canals. Also as others have stated many times MS does not spend thetime and energy in resources and finances to support a 360-focused ground up engine for their devs. I'm prertty confident that given the same develoment time as for UC2 and KZ2 for example that the 360 would put out similiar if not BETTER results.

Then cows will say, "Well look at Remedy and Alan Wake. They had 5 years it still doesn't look as good as uncharted." As much as cows want to deny it, Alan Wake is doing more technically than UC2. I honestly think that the PS3 would struggle big time with that game. Also cows can't make this argument because the only way to make a true comparison is to have the same developers (Naughty Dog and Guerrila), resources, finances, etc...with the same development time on the 360 to see what they could do. My guess is that the result would be similar if not better than the PS3.

So to answer the OP's question...NO. In fact I think it's the other way around with the 360 being possibly 10-15% more powerful than the PS3. It might even be more because the truth is that the PS3 hardware is asymmetrical which tends to "fight" devs rather than supporting them.

Cows really need to stop with the PS3 is more powerful because of games like UC2. Yes it looks good but it's not the second coming. It's as if cows need to hold onto UC2 to justify the so-called power of the PS3. Cows constantly brag about UC2 and feel safe because they know deep down that a true comparison of the same game with the same devs will pretty much never be done unless something drastic happens where Naughty Dog feels the need to further spread their wings.

Alan Wake does nothing that Infamous doesn't do....Open world, impressive lighting and all in native HD.....Alan Wake is Sub HD.

So see, while Uncharted 2 is the Console benchmark, it isn't the only example that can be used. there's GOW 3 (no game on the 360 compares), MLB THE SHOW (1080p native)...Killzone 2, and soon, GT5 (16 cars and 1920 x 1080p according to Polyphony Digital).

The fact is, XBOX 360 is over 4 1/2 years old and has plenty of its own exclusives, but none of them show the same graphical prowess of PS3's exclusives.

Splinter Cell, Alan Wake, Halo, Forza, they all show that XBOX 360 doesn't have the power to match PS3 game for game powerwise, and It is what it is....period.

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]They are roughly equal, only cows think its vastly superior. The people who made the things said they were equal, so it comes down to developer talent, and i dont think lemmings would argue that sony has the better devs. And THAT is where the great looking games come from, lets give the devs the credit, not Sony or the PS3.Persistantthug

Bingo!! Agreed!

...also those Sony devs better be talented because it's pretty much well known that developing for the PS3 is like going to the dentist to get 3 or 4 root canals. Also as others have stated many times MS does not spend thetime and energy in resources and finances to support a 360-focused ground up engine for their devs. I'm prertty confident that given the same develoment time as for UC2 and KZ2 for example that the 360 would put out similiar if not BETTER results.

Then cows will say, "Well look at Remedy and Alan Wake. They had 5 years it still doesn't look as good as uncharted." As much as cows want to deny it, Alan Wake is doing more technically than UC2. I honestly think that the PS3 would struggle big time with that game. Also cows can't make this argument because the only way to make a true comparison is to have the same developers (Naughty Dog and Guerrila), resources, finances, etc...with the same development time on the 360 to see what they could do. My guess is that the result would be similar if not better than the PS3.

So to answer the OP's question...NO. In fact I think it's the other way around with the 360 being possibly 10-15% more powerful than the PS3. It might even be more because the truth is that the PS3 hardware is asymmetrical which tends to "fight" devs rather than supporting them.

Cows really need to stop with the PS3 is more powerful because of games like UC2. Yes it looks good but it's not the second coming. It's as if cows need to hold onto UC2 to justify the so-called power of the PS3. Cows constantly brag about UC2 and feel safe because they know deep down that a true comparison of the same game with the same devs will pretty much never be done unless something drastic happens where Naughty Dog feels the need to further spread their wings.

Alan Wake does nothing that Infamous doesn't do....Open world, impressive lighting and all in native HD.....Alan Wake is Sub HD.

So see, while Uncharted 2 is the Console benchmark, it isn't the only example that can be used. there's GOW 3 (no game on the 360 compares), MLB THE SHOW (1080p native)...Killzone 2, and soon, GT5 (16 cars and 1920 x 1080p according to Polyphony Digital).

The fact is, XBOX 360 is over 4 1/2 years old and has plenty of its own exclusives, but none of them show the same graphical prowess of PS3's exclusives.

Splinter Cell, Alan Wake, Halo, Forza, they all show that XBOX 360 doesn't have the power to match PS3 game for game powerwise, and It is what it is....period.

Alan Wake does nothing that Infamous doesn't do....Open world, impressive lighting and all in native HD.....Alan Wake is Sub HD.

So see, while Uncharted 2 is the Console benchmark, it isn't the only example that can be used. there's GOW 3 (no game on the 360 compares), MLB THE SHOW (1080p native)...Killzone 2, and soon, GT5 (16 cars and 1920 x 1080p according to Polyphony Digital).

The fact is, XBOX 360 is over 4 1/2 years old and has plenty of its own exclusives, but none of them show the same graphical prowess of PS3's exclusives.

Splinter Cell, Alan Wake, Halo, Forza, they all show that XBOX 360 doesn't have the power to match PS3 game for game powerwise, and It is what it is....period.

Persistantthug

sorry, i liked infamous, but i find that AW is the better looking game. as it should be. infamous is a sandbox world. but on topic, i think the consoles are about equal. i think one of the most impressive two games this gen are RE5 and Assassin's Creed 2. both multiplats.

i find it funny that you constantly post PS3 propaganda. what does it matter what game the system is on? if its fun, its fun. Demon's Souls isn't a graphic powerhouse by any means. but its one of my favorites. and SMG 2 uses essentially beefed up gamecube hardware, and its tremendous.

you criticize systems and games you have almost no experience with, and that puts a serious question to your credibility.

lastly, where do you get an XX% more powerful theory? are you a dev? if not, i'd really like to see a link that justifies your mathematical approximations.

I think you have clearly proven you bias here, so no one takes you seriously. How old are you?navyguy21

Id go as far as 5% and thats pushing it.scottiescott238

This thread is still going i love it!!!!!!

Anyway back on topic look its been stated its dead even for the most part between both systems now it just comes down to preference and what games you like to play. Usually 9 out of 10 times it looks and run better on xbox 360 if its a multiplat and the exclusives look great on ps3 with the amount of time and effort put into them. But at the end of the day its all about preference and games you like to play.

you keep posting sub hd in red letters as though its some sort of powerful point that you only have control of.
do I have to go through the entire list of games on the ps3 via the beyond 3d resolution list and show that there are just as many if not more sub hd games on the ps3 then 360? including some of the biggest ps3 exclusiveS?

[QUOTE="clone01"]

[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]Alan Wake does nothing that Infamous doesn't do....Open world, impressive lighting and all in native HD.....Alan Wake is Sub HD.

So see, while Uncharted 2 is the Console benchmark, it isn't the only example that can be used. there's GOW 3 (no game on the 360 compares), MLB THE SHOW (1080p native)...Killzone 2, and soon, GT5 (16 cars and 1920 x 1080p according to Polyphony Digital).

The fact is, XBOX 360 is over 4 1/2 years old and has plenty of its own exclusives, but none of them show the same graphical prowess of PS3's exclusives.

Splinter Cell, Alan Wake, Halo, Forza, they all show that XBOX 360 doesn't have the power to match PS3 game for game powerwise, and It is what it is....period.

Persistantthug

sorry, i liked infamous, but i find that AW is the better looking game. as it should be. infamous is a sandbox world. but on topic, i think the consoles are about equal. i think one of the most impressive two games this gen are RE5 and Assassin's Creed 2. both multiplats.

i find it funny that you constantly post PS3 propaganda. what does it matter what game the system is on? if its fun, its fun. Demon's Souls isn't a graphic powerhouse by any means. but its one of my favorites. and SMG 2 uses essentially beefed up gamecube hardware, and its tremendous.

you criticize systems and games you have almost no experience with, and that puts a serious question to your credibility.

lastly, where do you get an XX% more powerful theory? are you a dev? if not, i'd really like to see a link that justifies your mathematical approximations.

I'm sorry that what I say seems to offend, but I speak the truth.

As nice as Alan Wake is, the fact is, to make it run the way it is, the developers had to downgrade it to, again, sub HD.

Fact is fact, and truth is truth regardless of the result preference.

If the sky was light blue on a clear day, its light blue regardless of how much I like the color green.

XBOX 360 has clearly shown it's less powerful than the PS3 and is unable to keep a consistant HD resolution "pace". Again...it is what it is.

Fact is fact, and truth is truth regardless of the result preference.

If the sky was light blue on a clear day, its light blue regardless of how much I like the color green.

XBOX 360 has clearly shown it's less powerful than the PS3 and is unable to keep a consistant HD resolution "pace". Again...it is what it is.

Persistantthug

it doesn't offend. and fact is not fact...its opinion. again, that link to back up your original statistics?

you keep posting sub hd in red letters as though its some sort of powerful point that you only have control of.
do I have to go through the entire list of games on the ps3 via the beyond 3d resolution list and show that there are just as many if not more sub hd games on the ps3 then 360? including some of the biggest ps3 exclusiveS?

WilliamRLBaker

You will find no 2010 exclusive PS3 at native sub HD WilliamRLBaker.....none....and that kinda is the point here.

Just when games are at the highest point ever in terms of console tech advancement, XBOX 360 has to take a step backwards whereas PS3 is meeting its HD standards.

Why is that? Answer:

XBOX 360 lacks HD power.....PS3 does not.

thus, PS3 is more powerful than XBOX 360.

What's so outlandish about this statement? It's all factual.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

you keep posting sub hd in red letters as though its some sort of powerful point that you only have control of.
do I have to go through the entire list of games on the ps3 via the beyond 3d resolution list and show that there are just as many if not more sub hd games on the ps3 then 360? including some of the biggest ps3 exclusiveS?

Persistantthug

You will find no 2010 exclusive PS3 at native sub HD WilliamRLBaker.....none....and that kinda is the point here.

Just when games are at the highest point ever in terms of console tech advancement, XBOX 360 has to take a step backwards whereas PS3 is meeting its HD standards.

Why is that? Answer:

XBOX 360 lacks HD power.....PS3 does not.

thus, PS3 is more powerful than XBOX 360.

What's so outlandish about this statement? It's all factual.

This thread=BUYERS REMORSE.

I dont think its 3 times as powerful, that sounds like 2005 SONY PR BS. I do think its a wee bit stronger though. or its atleast able to pump out better graphics.

No, I would say they are pretty much even.

IF PS3 has an advantage its with its exclusives, because most multiplats are better on 360.

PS3 maybe = 5%-10% more powerful?

The idea of "power" around here completely ignores the fact that there are very different types of code, and a machine that excels at one type may not show any advantage at all at another.

For example: the Cell is quite fast if you intend to work with floating-point vectors, can keep your working set to 256K per thread, can parallelize the workload into at least 6 threads, and don't have any resource contention keeping those threads fed with work. Sounds great if you're writing Gran Turismo (the physics code in GT5 is probably fully designed around the Cell's strengths), but otherwise, it might be easier to work with the 360's 3 symmetric cores.

[QUOTE="Persistantthug"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

you keep posting sub hd in red letters as though its some sort of powerful point that you only have control of.
do I have to go through the entire list of games on the ps3 via the beyond 3d resolution list and show that there are just as many if not more sub hd games on the ps3 then 360? including some of the biggest ps3 exclusiveS?

Ravensmash

You will find no 2010 exclusive PS3 at native sub HD WilliamRLBaker.....none....and that kinda is the point here.

Just when games are at the highest point ever in terms of console tech advancement, XBOX 360 has to take a step backwards whereas PS3 is meeting its HD standards.

Why is that? Answer:

XBOX 360 lacks HD power.....PS3 does not.

thus, PS3 is more powerful than XBOX 360.

What's so outlandish about this statement? It's all factual.

No....Actually 3 and the 4rth on the way that we already know about because its in beta.

Mass Effect = HD

Splinter Cell = sub HD

Alan Wake = sub HD

Halo Reach = sub HD

So...basically 75% of XBOX 360's exclusive 2010 games cannot do HD.

Whomever is trying to claim XBOX 360 has PS3 equivalent power is clearly mistaken.....clearly.

I am sure PS3 is vastly more powerfull

That immense power is the reason why it can apply this amazing blur filter on RDR and make it look like through the eyes of 10 degrees myopia 80 year oldman

Incredible technology, the crappy crisp 360 version does not have that effect, it is so weak

Also PS3 has exclusively sub HD in RDR, again something that 360 could never achieve, the subHD is actually far more intensive, because you have to use expensive blur filters to make the game look amazing, and movie like blurry (VHS like)

I would say PS3 is juts abot 15.345,99% more powerfull

theseekar

Don't forget they also used those effects on the PS3 version of Bayonetta. PS3 version runs super high at 30 FPS with a load of special slow down effects the 360 could not handle. While the 360 version runs at 60 fps (super slow) and has far less slowdown effects. Also the PS3 version of RDR displays so many polys at such a hi framerate that the human eye can't see much of it. For instance the foliage in RDR PS3 is rendered faster than the eye can see.