Console Hardware Discussion thread(KEEP IT IN HERE!).

This thread was made to keep all of the console hardware discussion in one easy to find place. I also made this thread so I could share my opinions about this in one post. I'm not going to include the WII in this particular post, because you and I both know it wasn't made to compete with the 360 or PS3 in Hardware performance.

Q:Wich console is more powerful overall?
A:Neither.Both have there advantages and disadvantages.

The PS3's main advantage is brute CPU power. This means that the PS3 will most definatly be able to perform much more comlicated Physics calculations. It does have it's disadvantages though. The Cell(PS3's CPU) doesn't have nearly as much General Purpose Processing Power as the Xenon(360's CPU).I'm confident this can be worked around though, the only way to do this though is to completly re-write most of the code that would normally be General Purpose into integer based algorithms. This is why I and many others believe the Cell's true potential will never be fully realized in a game.

The 360's main advantage'sare usable RAM and GPU power. The 360's GPU(Xenos) is definatly more powerful than the RSX(PS3's GPU) and more efficient. Rather then flood you with numbers I'll just explain in logic. The Xenos is only slightly faster at first glance but when you take into account the EDRAM and Tesselation unit(the later of which has only been used one game: Viva-Pinata) the difference is a bit larger. The only other GPU in the world with a tesselation unit is the recently released ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The edram allows the Xenos the to perform 4xMSAA in 720p with out any performance drop. The tesselation unit can cluster up a bunch polygons into one big polygon thus giving more performance with the same amount of detail. This basicly means that the Xenos will allway's be able to out perform the RSX.

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up 32 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up 52. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ram is 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pool and the PS3 does not, this basicly means on the 360 if a particular game didn't need that much ram for the CPUthe GPUcould use that extra ram to make the game look better and vice-versa. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for the OS the 360 has 480 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 ram for the GPU and CPU and 10 megs of Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 236 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 224 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 460 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 490, some of the PS3's ram is fasterso thePS3 has more usable bandwidth. So basicly for the 360 to compete with the PS3 in physics it would have touse most of its ram for the cpu thus elemenating it's Graphics advantage(see post below). So in other words games that are very physics heavy, Racing sims(like Gran Turismo)and large scale combat(like Lair)will look better on PS3, where as most other genre's/types of games, RPG's, FPS', Action Adventures, etc. will look better on 360.

So what does this all mean? It means the 360 will always be able to produce better Graphics and the PS3 will alway's be able to produce better physics.

EDIT: I Fixed the RAM footprint error.

Please keep in mind i'm not a video game programmer(yet), but I do believe i'm right.
I do plan to update this thread on a regular basis.

Forza 2 is a good example of the advantages and disadvantages of these two fine consoles. Thereare only two way's you can do real time physics simulation.

A: You can have the cpu completly render all of the calculations inreal time as the race goes on. But what if the cpu isn't performing that well or you just don't have the time to properly optimize the engine? Well that's where option B comes in.

B: You can have some of the answers pre-rendered and stored in the ram pool to take some load off the CPU. The problem with B is that it takes up ram.

It's possible that Turn 10 weren't getting the preformance they wanted and went with B thus stealing ram the Xenos GPU and forcing them downgrade those environmental texture's. Now Forza's defence it is great looking game, it's locked at 60FPS in 720p. Not to mention the fact that each car can have up to 4,000 layers of vinyl, and with 8 cars on the track that's 32,000layer's of vinyl. But the truth is many reviews cited that some of texture's at a some what low resolution. This is the one genre that I believe the PS3 will look better in, Racing Sims. Why?, well as I explained above the PS3's Cell is very good at physics processing which means it most likely will never have to deal with option B. This is why I believe GT5 will look better than Forza 2, even though thePS3 is Graphicly inferiorto the 360. And as I stated above(excluding PC games of course) I do believe that the 360 will have the best looking games in most if not all of the other genre's.

Still, it'd be nice to know how the Wii may compare to the Xbox and Gamecube of last gen, just maybe to own some haters, or so they can back up their claim on "Wii is teh Gamecube 1.5"!O_Lineman17

Still, it'd be nice to know how the Wii may compare to the Xbox and Gamecube of last gen, just maybe to own some haters, or so they can back up their claim on "Wii is teh Gamecube 1.5"!O_Lineman17

Yes please do a hardware comparision between those three systems.

you are going to add in the Wii though right? kansasdude2009

compare it to the Xbox and GC.

PS3 is more powerful. I think Blue ray is its ultimate advantage.Silvereign

I agree... The 360 is powerful, but I do believe that the PS3 will overcome the 360 some day. But the difference will be so little that no person should fret about it.

[QUOTE="kansasdude2009"]you are going to add in the Wii though right? Silvereign

compare it to the Xbox and GC.

not graphics... there is more to hardware than just graphics. If this topic wants to live up to its name it should include everything and show off the advantages for each console as to not be fanboyish.

PS3 is more powerful. I think Blue ray is its ultimate advantage.Silvereign

okay? blu ray just allows more space, what i can say is that the limited ram and weak gpu of the ps3 bottle necks the system, the cell can work as a gpu, to a point, mostly shaders to take the work off the gpu. The 360 has its definite advantage with its superior gpu, edram, as well as its more effiecinet cpu.:)

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up about 30 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up about 90. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ramis 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pooland the PS3 does not. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for theOS the 360 has 482 megsof1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3ram for the GPUand CPUand 10 megsof Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 166 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 256 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 422 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 492, though some of the PS3's ram is faster, the the 360 still has more usable bandwidth.

HaloFan77

First, the base memory footprint of the PS3 OS in main memory has been reduced from 56 MB to 52 MB. These values will lead to some confusion, as we've previously reported that the memory footprint was 64 MB. 8MB of memory was given back to developers sometime before Christmas, and now a further 4 MB has been returned. Currently, as of SDK 1.60, the PS3 operating system takes up 52 MB of main memory and 32 MB of graphics memory (84 MB total). As a comparison, the Xbox 360 still only uses 32 MB of shared memory for all its system utilities.

Just to Update your OS Footprint

This thread was made to keep all of the console hardware discussion in one easy to find place. I also made this thread so I could share my opinions about this in one post. I'm not going to include the WIIin this particular post, because you and I both know it wasn't made to compete with the 360 or PS3 in Hardware performance.

Q:Wich console is more powerful overall?
A:Neither.Both have there advantages and disadvantages.

The PS3's main advantage is brute CPU power. This means thatthe PS3 will most definatly be able to perform much more comlicated Physics calculations. It does have it's disadvantages though.The Cell(PS3's CPU)doesn't have nearly as much GeneralPurpose Processing Power as the Xenon(360's CPU).I'm confidentthis can be worked around though, the only way to do this though is to completly re-writemost ofthe code that would normally be General Purpose into integer based algorithms. This is why Iand many others believe the Cell'strue potential will never be fully realized in a game.

The 360's main advantage is usable RAM and GPU power. The 360's GPU(Xenos) is definatly more powerful than the RSX(PS3's GPU) and more efficient. Rather then flood you with numbers I'll just explain in logic. TheXenos is only slightly faster at first glancebut when you take into account the EDRAM and Tesselation unit(the later of which has only been used one game: Viva-Pinata) the differenceis a bit larger. The only other GPU in the world with a tesselation unit is the recently released ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The edram allows the Xenosthe perform 4xMSAA in 720p with out any performance drop. The tesselation unit can cluster up a bunch polygons into one big polygon thus giving more performance withthe same amount of detail. This basicly means that the Xenos willallway's be able to out perform the RSX.

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up about 30 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up about 90. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ramis 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pooland the PS3 does not. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for theOS the 360 has 482 megsof1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3ram for the GPUand CPUand 10 megsof Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 166 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 256 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 422 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 492, though some of the PS3's ram is faster, the the 360 still has more usable bandwidth.

So what does this all mean? It means the 360 will always be able to produce better Graphics and the PS3 will alway's be able to produce better physics.

Please keep in mind in not a video game programmer(yet), but I do believe i'm right.
I do plan to update this thread on a regular basis.

HaloFan77

Why update something so fallacious? You talk technojargon then say that? The ps3 cell CPU can do amazing amounts of vector processing. Go to any PC forum or ninja theory for more insight. Vector processing allows for many GPU functions to be performed like water, grass, lighting etc. That frees up A LOT of resources on the GPU. Btw the GPU's arent as different as YOu state. The gflops on the 360 is around 228 and 214 for RSX..that is NOT an order of magnitude difference. Research more before making such a definitive thread.

[QUOTE="Silvereign"]PS3 is more powerful. I think Blue ray is its ultimate advantage.Goldensun48

okay? blu ray just allows more space, what i can say is that the limited ram and weak gpu of the ps3 bottle necks the system, the cell can work as a gpu, to a point, mostly shaders to take the work off the gpu. The 360 has its definite advantage with its superior gpu, edram, as well as its more effiecinet cpu.:)

It provides clearer vand better visuals improving graphic you get more content and action in a game. There will be much more happening at one time. Your acting like the gpu for 360 kills the PS3's gpu. It has a slight advantage. The PS3's CPU kills the 360's CPU. So here's what I look at.

Blue ray >>>>> 360's DVD

Cell >>>> 360's Cell

360's gpu > RSX

[QUOTE="Goldensun48"]

[QUOTE="Silvereign"]PS3 is more powerful. I think Blue ray is its ultimate advantage.Silvereign

okay? blu ray just allows more space, what i can say is that the limited ram and weak gpu of the ps3 bottle necks the system, the cell can work as a gpu, to a point, mostly shaders to take the work off the gpu. The 360 has its definite advantage with its superior gpu, edram, as well as its more effiecinet cpu.:)

It provides clearer vand better visuals improving graphic you get more content and action in a game. There will be much more happening at one time. Your acting like the gpu for 360 kills the PS3's gpu. It has a slight advantage. The PS3's CPU kills the 360's CPU. So here's what I look at.

Blue ray >>>>> 360's DVD

Cell >>>> 360's Cell

360's gpu > RSX

The storage format doesn't improve anything :|

Blu-Ray can store alot of information but it's slow, so slow infact that Bethesda had to duplicate data on the disc to get Oblivion running smoothly, thank God it has all that space :roll:

[QUOTE="HaloFan77"]

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up about 30 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up about 90. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ramis 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pooland the PS3 does not. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for theOS the 360 has 482 megsof1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3ram for the GPUand CPUand 10 megsof Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 166 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 256 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 422 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 492, though some of the PS3's ram is faster, the the 360 still has more usable bandwidth.

DanBrim1

First, the base memory footprint of the PS3 OS in main memory has been reduced from 56 MB to 52 MB. These values will lead to some confusion, as we've previously reported that the memory footprint was 64 MB. 8MB of memory was given back to developers sometime before Christmas, and now a further 4 MB has been returned. Currently, as of SDK 1.60, the PS3 operating system takes up 52 MB of main memory and 32 MB of graphics memory (84 MB total). As a comparison, the Xbox 360 still only uses 32 MB of shared memory for all its system utilities.

Just to Update your OS Footprint

[QUOTE="HaloFan77"]

This thread was made to keep all of the console hardware discussion in one easy to find place. I also made this thread so I could share my opinions about this in one post. I'm not going to include the WIIin this particular post, because you and I both know it wasn't made to compete with the 360 or PS3 in Hardware performance.

Q:Wich console is more powerful overall?
A:Neither.Both have there advantages and disadvantages.

The PS3's main advantage is brute CPU power. This means thatthe PS3 will most definatly be able to perform much more comlicated Physics calculations. It does have it's disadvantages though.The Cell(PS3's CPU)doesn't have nearly as much GeneralPurpose Processing Power as the Xenon(360's CPU).I'm confidentthis can be worked around though, the only way to do this though is to completly re-writemost ofthe code that would normally be General Purpose into integer based algorithms. This is why Iand many others believe the Cell'strue potential will never be fully realized in a game.

The 360's main advantage is usable RAM and GPU power. The 360's GPU(Xenos) is definatly more powerful than the RSX(PS3's GPU) and more efficient. Rather then flood you with numbers I'll just explain in logic. TheXenos is only slightly faster at first glancebut when you take into account the EDRAM and Tesselation unit(the later of which has only been used one game: Viva-Pinata) the differenceis a bit larger. The only other GPU in the world with a tesselation unit is the recently released ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The edram allows the Xenosthe perform 4xMSAA in 720p with out any performance drop. The tesselation unit can cluster up a bunch polygons into one big polygon thus giving more performance withthe same amount of detail. This basicly means that the Xenos willallway's be able to out perform the RSX.

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up about 30 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up about 90. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ramis 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pooland the PS3 does not. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for theOS the 360 has 482 megsof1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3ram for the GPUand CPUand 10 megsof Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 166 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 256 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 422 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 492, though some of the PS3's ram is faster, the the 360 still has more usable bandwidth.

So what does this all mean? It means the 360 will always be able to produce better Graphics and the PS3 will alway's be able to produce better physics.

Please keep in mind in not a video game programmer(yet), but I do believe i'm right.
I do plan to update this thread on a regular basis.

Dave_NBF

Why update something so fallacious? You talk technojargon then say that? The ps3 cell CPU can do amazing amounts of vector processing. Go to any PC forum or ninja theory for more insight. Vector processing allows for many GPU functions to be performed like water, grass, lighting etc. That frees up A LOT of resources on the GPU. Btw the GPU's arent as different as YOu state. The gflops on the 360 is around 228 and 214 for RSX..that is NOT an order of magnitude difference. Research more before making such a definitive thread.

[QUOTE="Dave_NBF"][QUOTE="HaloFan77"]

This thread was made to keep all of the console hardware discussion in one easy to find place. I also made this thread so I could share my opinions about this in one post. I'm not going to include the WIIin this particular post, because you and I both know it wasn't made to compete with the 360 or PS3 in Hardware performance.

Q:Wich console is more powerful overall?
A:Neither.Both have there advantages and disadvantages.

The PS3's main advantage is brute CPU power. This means thatthe PS3 will most definatly be able to perform much more comlicated Physics calculations. It does have it's disadvantages though.The Cell(PS3's CPU)doesn't have nearly as much GeneralPurpose Processing Power as the Xenon(360's CPU).I'm confidentthis can be worked around though, the only way to do this though is to completly re-writemost ofthe code that would normally be General Purpose into integer based algorithms. This is why Iand many others believe the Cell'strue potential will never be fully realized in a game.

The 360's main advantage is usable RAM and GPU power. The 360's GPU(Xenos) is definatly more powerful than the RSX(PS3's GPU) and more efficient. Rather then flood you with numbers I'll just explain in logic. TheXenos is only slightly faster at first glancebut when you take into account the EDRAM and Tesselation unit(the later of which has only been used one game: Viva-Pinata) the differenceis a bit larger. The only other GPU in the world with a tesselation unit is the recently released ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The edram allows the Xenosthe perform 4xMSAA in 720p with out any performance drop. The tesselation unit can cluster up a bunch polygons into one big polygon thus giving more performance withthe same amount of detail. This basicly means that the Xenos willallway's be able to out perform the RSX.

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up about 30 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up about 90. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ramis 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pooland the PS3 does not. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for theOS the 360 has 482 megsof1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3ram for the GPUand CPUand 10 megsof Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 166 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 256 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 422 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 492, though some of the PS3's ram is faster, the the 360 still has more usable bandwidth.

So what does this all mean? It means the 360 will always be able to produce better Graphics and the PS3 will alway's be able to produce better physics.

Please keep in mind in not a video game programmer(yet), but I do believe i'm right.
I do plan to update this thread on a regular basis.

HaloFan77

Why update something so fallacious? You talk technojargon then say that? The ps3 cell CPU can do amazing amounts of vector processing. Go to any PC forum or ninja theory for more insight. Vector processing allows for many GPU functions to be performed like water, grass, lighting etc. That frees up A LOT of resources on the GPU. Btw the GPU's arent as different as YOu state. The gflops on the 360 is around 228 and 214 for RSX..that is NOT an order of magnitude difference. Research more before making such a definitive thread.

hmmm well that is beyond my understanding as im not into IT or CS at all (except counter-strike;) )...but 2.3 times the vector performance seems like a lot. Also, How does the xenon have more vector performance than RSX? From all I have heard is that the RSX isn't as gimped as people make it out to be. It still does operate at a higher clock speed which makes up for some of the lack of efficiency in the chip.

If the cell isn't an order of magnitude bigger than the xenos, then why are there many developers out there that believe the cell to be MUCH more powerful? Other enthusiasts state the same that know way more than me. THere is a post about that over at hardforum which a member talks about the vector capabilities and other things the cell should be able to do much more easily than the 360 CPU. Finally, the ps3 wasn't even going to have a GPU. There were demos running demos with only a single cell that looked so fluid. I run 3dmark06 and the cpu tests just chug my high end PC. I have been under an assumption that while highly specialized, the CELL can do many GPU like tasks that computers like mine cant do?

Also, the CPU on the ps2 was better than xbox's, but the GPU discrepency was HUGE. 64mb vs 4mb i believe. That is WAY different than the rsx vs xenon. Now looking at God of War vs Xbox's best...it doesn't show that big of a graphical difference. I can't see how there really is any advantage in visuals from a GPU standpoint looking at how far advanced teh original xbox's gpu was compared to PS2 and how similar the games looked (though xbox was obviously better). Its just too close this time on the GPU front..but the CPU's don't appear that close. I see the advantage going PS3 (i have both btw).

[QUOTE="HaloFan77"][QUOTE="Dave_NBF"][QUOTE="HaloFan77"]

This thread was made to keep all of the console hardware discussion in one easy to find place. I also made this thread so I could share my opinions about this in one post. I'm not going to include the WIIin this particular post, because you and I both know it wasn't made to compete with the 360 or PS3 in Hardware performance.

Q:Wich console is more powerful overall?
A:Neither.Both have there advantages and disadvantages.

The PS3's main advantage is brute CPU power. This means thatthe PS3 will most definatly be able to perform much more comlicated Physics calculations. It does have it's disadvantages though.The Cell(PS3's CPU)doesn't have nearly as much GeneralPurpose Processing Power as the Xenon(360's CPU).I'm confidentthis can be worked around though, the only way to do this though is to completly re-writemost ofthe code that would normally be General Purpose into integer based algorithms. This is why Iand many others believe the Cell'strue potential will never be fully realized in a game.

The 360's main advantage is usable RAM and GPU power. The 360's GPU(Xenos) is definatly more powerful than the RSX(PS3's GPU) and more efficient. Rather then flood you with numbers I'll just explain in logic. TheXenos is only slightly faster at first glancebut when you take into account the EDRAM and Tesselation unit(the later of which has only been used one game: Viva-Pinata) the differenceis a bit larger. The only other GPU in the world with a tesselation unit is the recently released ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT. The edram allows the Xenosthe perform 4xMSAA in 720p with out any performance drop. The tesselation unit can cluster up a bunch polygons into one big polygon thus giving more performance withthe same amount of detail. This basicly means that the Xenos willallway's be able to out perform the RSX.

The 360's OS is also very efficient and only takes up about 30 megs of ram where as the PS3's takes up about 90. Yes the PS3's XDR system ram is clocked at 3.2 GHz but it's 64bit wich means it's equal to 1.6 GHz 128bit ram, The 360's ramis 1.4GHz 128bit. The 360 has a unified ram pooland the PS3 does not. So the after you subtract the ram reserved for theOS the 360 has 482 megsof1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3ram for the GPUand CPUand 10 megsof Embedded DRAM for the frame buffer. The PS3 has 166 megs of 3.2GHz 64bit XDR system ram and 256 megs of 1.4GHz 128bit GDDR3 video ram.Which leaves the PS3 with 422 total megs of usable ram and the 360 with 492, though some of the PS3's ram is faster, the the 360 still has more usable bandwidth.

So what does this all mean? It means the 360 will always be able to produce better Graphics and the PS3 will alway's be able to produce better physics.

Please keep in mind in not avideo game programmer(yet), but I do believe i'm right.
I do plan to update this thread on a regular basis.

Dave_NBF

Why update something so fallacious? You talk technojargon then say that? The ps3 cell CPU can do amazing amounts of vector processing. Go to any PC forum or ninja theory for more insight. Vector processing allows for many GPU functions to be performed like water, grass, lighting etc. That frees up A LOT of resources on the GPU. Btw the GPU's arent as different as YOu state. The gflops on the 360 is around 228 and 214 for RSX..that is NOT an order of magnitude difference. Research more before making such a definitive thread.

hmmm well that is beyond my understanding as im not into IT or CS at all (except counter-strike;) )...but 2.3 times the vector performance seems like a lot. Also, How does the xenon have more vector performance than RSX? From all I have heard is that the RSX isn't as gimped as people make it out to be. It still does operate at a higher clock speed which makes up for some of the lack of efficiency in the chip.

If the cell isn't an order of magnitude bigger than the xenos, then why are there many developers out there that believe the cell to be MUCH more powerful? Other enthusiasts state the same that know way more than me. THere is a post about that over at hardforum which a member talks about the vector capabilities and other things the cell should be able to do much more easily than the 360 CPU. Finally, the ps3 wasn't even going to have a GPU. There were demos running demos with only a single cell that looked so fluid. I run 3dmark06 and the cpu tests just chug my high end PC. I have been under an assumption that while highly specialized, the CELL can do many GPU like tasks that computers like mine cant do?

Also, the CPU on the ps2 was better than xbox's, but the GPU discrepency was HUGE. 64mb vs 4mb i believe. That is WAY different than the rsx vs xenon. Now looking at God of War vs Xbox's best...it doesn't show that big of a graphical difference. I can't see how there really is any advantage in visuals from a GPU standpoint looking at how far advanced teh original xbox's gpu was compared to PS2 and how similar the games looked (though xbox was obviously better). Its just too close this time on the GPU front..but the CPU's don't appear that close. I see the advantage going PS3 (i have both btw).