Console power - the truth

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. It has a more advanced CPU that's more powerful, the same amount of combined RAM and it's graphics chip is in league with 360's. Furthermore it has more storage space (blu-ray vs DVD). If it harder to program for or has some issues does not negate it's power.

Wii is more powerful than Xbox, GameCube and PS2. It's basically a enhanced GameCube which already was comparable to Xbox in graphics if well used and the Wii is better than it. If many Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 titles does not negate it's power.

3DS is more powerful than PSP and way more powerful than the DSi/XL. While concrete specs may be sparse, from all the information I gather it has two CPUs which combined are faster than PSP's, a graphics chip that has way better shading capabilites than the PSP and much more total RAM. If many games don't show that due to rendering two pictures for the 3D effect does not negate it's power.

As for unreleased consoles: Vita will, from all I gather, be way more powerful than the 3DS and not really competition for it while Wii-U will be considerably more powerful than the HD twins and way more powerful than Wii.

1. most multiplats are better on the 360

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power

4. sorry to break it to you, but there's no hidden untapped power within the cell. :(

PS3 and 360 are exactly the same.

1. most multiplats are better on the 360

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power

4. sorry to break it to you, but there's no hidden untapped power within the cell. :(

MozartXVI

1. means nothing really. The PS3 is as good as the effort the devs are willing to put into. Compare GTA IV and Uncharted 2 on the PS3 and you'll see a massive difference.

2. if you mean console graphics king, that could be so but graphics are subjective anyway.

3. they are comparable but by no means equal.

4. it's not about "hidden untapped power", it's about how the devs use it's advantages.

I'd love to believe the PS3 > 360 Graphics Rumor. BUT until I see a PS3 exclusive bust a good looking online shooter without using QAA, MLAA or some other cheaper less taxing form of AA, I believe Geow2 still shines the 360 with a great looking online game with 2xMSAA + split screen. Even Uncharted 2(the PS3 Graphical God) can't do online gaming with 2xMSAA like Geow2, none theless split screen

PS3 and 360 are exactly the same.

Fizzman

That's like saying the SNES and Genesis were exactly the same.

If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3?foxhound_fox

Because most 3rd party devs are unwilling to explore the PS3's hardware to the fullest and rather make games for the 360 and port them over to the PS3 since it's easier to do so.

You say that the PS3 and 360's GPU are the same but haven't devs been saying since the beginning of this gen that the 360's is better?soulitane

It may have the slight edge but it's by no means miles better. They're on-par in GPU power and features if anything. It's the CPU that's considerably better on the PS3.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3?nameless12345

Because most 3rd party devs are unwilling to explore the PS3's hardware to the fullest and rather make games for the 360 and port them over to the PS3 since it's easier to do so.

Right the Vram is a huge difference between the 2 go ahead and look it up TC.

That's like saying the SNES and Genesis were exactly the same.nameless12345

Because most 3rd party devs are unwilling to explore the PS3's hardware to the fullest and rather make games for the 360 and port them over to the PS3 since it's easier to do so.nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3?dovberg

Because most 3rd party devs are unwilling to explore the PS3's hardware to the fullest and rather make games for the 360 and port them over to the PS3 since it's easier to do so.

Right the Vram is a huge difference between the 2 go ahead and look it up TC.

Meh, the Dreamcast had 8 megs V-RAM whereas the PS2 had 4. But in the end of the day the PS2 was considerably more powerful.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]If the PS3 were more powerful, then why isn't every game produced on the platform look better than games on the 360?foxhound_fox

That's really like asking why most Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 games. It has nothing to do with power but everything to do with developer's lazyness.

1. most multiplats are better on the 360

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power

4. sorry to break it to you, but there's no hidden untapped power within the cell. :(

That's really like asking why most Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 games. It has nothing to do with power but everything to do with developer's lazyness.nameless12345

[QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

1. most multiplats are better on the 360

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power

4. sorry to break it to you, but there's no hidden untapped power within the cell. :(

lucky_star

Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.

Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.foxhound_fox

Theoretical potential is an ideal to which the devs should aim for.

[QUOTE="lucky_star"][QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

1. most multiplats are better on the 360

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power

4. sorry to break it to you, but there's no hidden untapped power within the cell. :(

nameless12345

Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="lucky_star"] Crysis2 is graphics king on the 360? Its not even that impressive on pc :/Plagueless

Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.

The 360 may be better tapped-out due to being a more efficient design but it's not more powerful. The reason why the graphics don't look much better on the PS3 is simply that it's GPU is nothing special and the GPU just happens to be more important for the graphics. But in raw power the PS3 is undoubtly more powerful.

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.

nameless12345

The 360 may be better tapped-out due to being a more efficient design but it's not more powerful. The reason why the graphics don't look much better on the PS3 is simply that it's GPU is nothing special and the GPU just happens to be more important for the graphics. But in raw power the PS3 is undoubtly more powerful.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Plagueless"] Your point that PS3 is more powerful is pure theory. Yes, the Cell should have potential to be better, but reality is that multiplat devs dont see the point in making the PS3 version look better when the 360 version is the better seller ofthe two. Also, the GPU in the 360 is not the same as the ps3's: the 360 uses unifed shader architecture for textures and vertex, while ps3 has dedicated shaders fo those purposes. In short, that means the 360 can use more power for textures or vertex when needed unlike the Ps3. Its kinda funny because the 360 does the same thing with its gpu that the ps3 does with the cell: rerouting power.

Plagueless

The 360 may be better tapped-out due to being a more efficient design but it's not more powerful. The reason why the graphics don't look much better on the PS3 is simply that it's GPU is nothing special and the GPU just happens to be more important for the graphics. But in raw power the PS3 is undoubtly more powerful.

The memory and GPU are outdated on the 360 as well. They're both five years old consoles after all. The graphics don't necessarily show the power of the console. There are other things too like physics, AI and stuff like that and in those the extra processing power could come to it's expression (if there were any games making extensive use of that).

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

The 360 may be better tapped-out due to being a more efficient design but it's not more powerful. The reason why the graphics don't look much better on the PS3 is simply that it's GPU is nothing special and the GPU just happens to be more important for the graphics. But in raw power the PS3 is undoubtly more powerful.

nameless12345

The memory and GPU are outdated on the 360 as well. They're both five years old consoles after all. The graphics don't necessarily show the power of the console. There are other things too like physics, AI and stuff like that and in those the extra processing power could come to it's expression (if there were any games making extensive use of that).

People that say the PS2 looks as good as the Wii are tripin'. I have both hooked up to my HDTV and the PS2 looks like hell and the Wii looks night and day better on it.

If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3? Numbers on paper are meaningless if the developers can't do anything with them.foxhound_fox

Ironically PS3 exclusives look better than everything else on consoles...

1. most multiplats are better on the 360

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power

4. sorry to break it to you, but there's no hidden untapped power within the cell. :(

MozartXVI

1. True. But we are talking about console power, not about what platform is primary for most multiplats.

2. False, as proven several times already. Even Killzone 3 looks better (way better actually).

3. Because they are. Pretty much. PS3 has a slight edge though.

4. True. It has about 3 times more theoretical maximum power in terms of GFLOPs compared to 360 CPU. No hidden power though, its just difficult to use it.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3? Numbers on paper are meaningless if the developers can't do anything with them.GD1551

Ironically PS3 exclusives look better than everything else on consoles...

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. nameless12345

the same amount of total RAM (which is faster even)nameless12345

and it's graphics chip is on-par with 360's (Geforce 7800 series is comparable to Radeon X1900 series)nameless12345

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]Well like I said - graphics are subjective. What isn't subjective is hardware capabilies.nameless12345

Theoretical potential is an ideal to which the devs should aim for.

by that logic the Sega saturn outshines the PS1 in 3D graphics

...now show me a saturn game that outshines all PS1 games

A more powerful computer doesn't necessarily mean that it will offer superior gaming performance.

On PC a top of the line Intel i7 is definitely more powerful than a much cheaper AMD Phenom II, and a PC with the best i7 and a mediocre graphics card can definitely be more powerful than a Phenom II with a good (but not necessarily anywhere near the best) graphics card in many areas of computing. Of course one of the exceptions, and probably the one a gaming forum really should care about, is gaming performance.

It is true that PS3 has a stronger CPU, however its GPU is vastly weaker than 360's. I'm not sure how you can claim that their GPUs are comparable, simply because nvidia and ATi released the architectures of those GPUs around the time? For your information 360 is using a stronger version of the card, while the PS3 is using a card with lower clock speeds than a normal series 7. One of the reasons porting is so difficult is that if the PS3's CPU is not properly utilised, the GPU alone cannot provide comparable graphics. Your understanding of power seems mistaken.

On PC the performance related to encoding videos, graphics editing, etc may be relevant, and a consumer who plans on using those functions may take them into consideration when comparing the strengths of different setups. On a gaming console the only thing that is relevant when it comes to hardware is gaming performance. Time has shown again and again that despite having a weaker CPU, the stronger GPU of 360 allows the console to provide comparable quality.

Let me end console power debates once and for all:

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. It has a more advanced CPU that's more powerful, the same amount of total RAM (which is faster even) and it's graphics chip is on-par with 360's (Geforce 7800 series is comparable to Radeon X1900 series). Furthermore it has more storage space (blu-ray vs DVD). If it harder to program for or has some issues does not negate it's power.

Wii is more powerful than Xbox, GameCube and PS2. It's basically a enhanced GameCube which already was comparable to Xbox in graphics if well used and the Wii is better than it. If many Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 titles does not negate it's power.

3DS is more powerful than PSP and way more powerful than the DSi/XL. While concrete specs may be sparse, from all the information I gather it has two CPUs which combined are faster than PSP's, a graphics chip that has way better shading capabilites than the PSP and much more total RAM. If many games don't show that due to rendering two pictures for the 3D effect does not negate it's power.

As for unreleased consoles: Vita will, from all I gather, be way more powerful than the 3DS and not really competition for it while Wii-U will be considerably more powerful than the HD twins and way more powerful than Wii.

So there you have it. Objection is not possible :P

nameless12345

The 7800 is comparable with the x1800, not x1900. The x1900 wiped the floor with the 7800. The 7900 was the direct competitor of the x1900.

Not exactly sure what the 360's GPU actually is, but I read somewhere it's a unified architecture GPU with performance around the x1900 level.

While the PS3's is a gimped 7800. The PS3 still has a much more powerful CPU though.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3? Numbers on paper are meaningless if the developers can't do anything with them.kimcorecoba

Ironically PS3 exclusives look better than everything else on consoles...

Well, lets just check what games won the best technical graphics award in past 3 years here on gamespot:

2008: Metal Gear Solid 4

2009: Uncharted 2

2010: God of War 3

Wow, surprise! All of them are PS3 exlusives. 8)

Let me end console power debates once and for all:

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. It has a more advanced CPU that's more powerful, the same amount of total RAM (which is faster even) and it's graphics chip is on-par with 360's (Geforce 7800 series is comparable to Radeon X1900 series). Furthermore it has more storage space (blu-ray vs DVD). If it harder to program for or has some issues does not negate it's power.

Wii is more powerful than Xbox, GameCube and PS2. It's basically a enhanced GameCube which already was comparable to Xbox in graphics if well used and the Wii is better than it. If many Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 titles does not negate it's power.

3DS is more powerful than PSP and way more powerful than the DSi/XL. While concrete specs may be sparse, from all the information I gather it has two CPUs which combined are faster than PSP's, a graphics chip that has way better shading capabilites than the PSP and much more total RAM. If many games don't show that due to rendering two pictures for the 3D effect does not negate it's power.

As for unreleased consoles: Vita will, from all I gather, be way more powerful than the 3DS and not really competition for it while Wii-U will be considerably more powerful than the HD twins and way more powerful than Wii.

So there you have it. Objection is not possible :P

nameless12345

Geforce 7800 (G70) series is NOT comparable to Radeon X1900 e.g.

1. 32 bit shader compute would stomp G7X's performance. Geforce FX says Hi for Geforce 7x00. Don't you like NVIDIA's "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" in hiding it's design flaws? 16bit math is your friend for RSX/G7X.

2. G7X's lack of decoupled shader and texture unit design would stall pixel shader units.

3. Using branch function on G7X would stomp G7X's performance.

4. RSX/G7C doesn't have unified shader hardware design.

5. RSX/G7X can't do concurrent HDR FP + MSAA on hardware.

There are more design flaws with Geforce 7/FSX family. Should I continue?

Geforce 7x00 is NOT a proper GpGPU e.g. poor performance with Fold @ Home GPU1 (unreleased build).

The truth is that the difference between PS3 and 360 is so miniscule that is not worth making a thread about it.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Let me end console power debates once and for all:

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. It has a more advanced CPU that's more powerful, the same amount of total RAM (which is faster even) and it's graphics chip is on-par with 360's (Geforce 7800 series is comparable to Radeon X1900 series). Furthermore it has more storage space (blu-ray vs DVD). If it harder to program for or has some issues does not negate it's power.

Wii is more powerful than Xbox, GameCube and PS2. It's basically a enhanced GameCube which already was comparable to Xbox in graphics if well used and the Wii is better than it. If many Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 titles does not negate it's power.

3DS is more powerful than PSP and way more powerful than the DSi/XL. While concrete specs may be sparse, from all the information I gather it has two CPUs which combined are faster than PSP's, a graphics chip that has way better shading capabilites than the PSP and much more total RAM. If many games don't show that due to rendering two pictures for the 3D effect does not negate it's power.

As for unreleased consoles: Vita will, from all I gather, be way more powerful than the 3DS and not really competition for it while Wii-U will be considerably more powerful than the HD twins and way more powerful than Wii.

So there you have it. Objection is not possible :P

The 7800 is comparable with the x1800, not x1900. The x1900 wiped the floor with the 7800. The 7900 was the direct competitor of the x1900.

Not exactly sure what the 360's GPU actually is, but I read somewhere it's a unified architecture GPU with performance around the x1900 level.

While the PS3's is a gimped 7800. The PS3 still has a much more powerful CPU though.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, then why do 90% of its multiplat games look and perform worse on the PS3? Numbers on paper are meaningless if the developers can't do anything with them.kimcorecoba

Ironically PS3 exclusives look better than everything else on consoles...

Of course he isn't but as an exclusive is just on one platform you can't compare directly and he can't be proved wrong , you could say the same for 360 exclusives if you want but it's a Cows thing really .

Cows have claimed and declared console graphics King for almost every exclusive game on the PS3 platform from the early days of Lair and Heavenly sword to whatever you fancy now ;)

PS3 is not more powerful than 360 (old myth proved wrong by games like RDR, Crysis 2, Gears 3, Forza 4...), dont act like this fact is some kind of insult to the mighty PS3...

At this point, tech wise, both consoles are equally outdated. Good news are that they are still showing impressive graphics this late in the gen!

[QUOTE="QQabitmoar"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Let me end console power debates once and for all:

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. It has a more advanced CPU that's more powerful, the same amount of total RAM (which is faster even) and it's graphics chip is on-par with 360's (Geforce 7800 series is comparable to Radeon X1900 series). Furthermore it has more storage space (blu-ray vs DVD). If it harder to program for or has some issues does not negate it's power.

Wii is more powerful than Xbox, GameCube and PS2. It's basically a enhanced GameCube which already was comparable to Xbox in graphics if well used and the Wii is better than it. If many Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 titles does not negate it's power.

3DS is more powerful than PSP and way more powerful than the DSi/XL. While concrete specs may be sparse, from all the information I gather it has two CPUs which combined are faster than PSP's, a graphics chip that has way better shading capabilites than the PSP and much more total RAM. If many games don't show that due to rendering two pictures for the 3D effect does not negate it's power.

As for unreleased consoles: Vita will, from all I gather, be way more powerful than the 3DS and not really competition for it while Wii-U will be considerably more powerful than the HD twins and way more powerful than Wii.

So there you have it. Objection is not possible :P

ronvalencia

The 7800 is comparable with the x1800, not x1900. The x1900 wiped the floor with the 7800. The 7900 was the direct competitor of the x1900.

Not exactly sure what the 360's GPU actually is, but I read somewhere it's a unified architecture GPU with performance around the x1900 level.

While the PS3's is a gimped 7800. The PS3 still has a much more powerful CPU though.

I never said the 7900 beat the x1900. I was just saying how the 7800 was never put up against the 1900, but rather the x1800. And how the 7900 was supossed to compete with the 1900. Now, the fact that it didn't...does it matter after all this time? Nvidia won the market with the legendary 8800 after all, with the failure of the 2900.

I never said the 7900 beat the x1900. I was just saying how the 7800 was never put up against the 1900, but rather the x1800. And how the 7900 was supossed to compete with the 1900. Now, the fact that it didn't...does it matter after all this time? Nvidia won the market with the legendary 8800 after all, with the failure of the 2900.

QQabitmoar

The topic was about the console hardware i.e. PS3 doesn't sport 8800.

Anyway, 8800 includes all the hardware improvements from X1900 i.e. large hyperthread pool, decoupled shader and texture units, good branch hardware, 3DC+ texture compression format support, full 32bit compute performance, concurrent HDR FP + MSAA and etc.

8800 is a good array processor for Fold @ Home GPU2 client.

During this era, I have selected 8600M GT GDDR3 for my laptop i.e. ASUS G1S. This laptop has suffered NVIDIA's bumpgate, but that's another topic.

I like how you use your opinion and say it's fact without delivering facts. Anyway, from what I've seen so far, x360 and Ps3 are about the same, Sony just has better 1st party titles. 3DS is about the same as PSP from what I've seen so far, nothing impressive on the 3DS

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360nameless12345

Let me end console power debates once and for all:

PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360. That's a fact and you can't argue about it. It has a more advanced CPU that's more powerful, the same amount of total RAM (which is faster even) and it's graphics chip is on-par with 360's (Geforce 7800 series is comparable to Radeon X1900 series). Furthermore it has more storage space (blu-ray vs DVD). If it harder to program for or has some issues does not negate it's power.

Wii is more powerful than Xbox, GameCube and PS2. It's basically a enhanced GameCube which already was comparable to Xbox in graphics if well used and the Wii is better than it. If many Wii games look on-par or even worse than PS2 titles does not negate it's power.

3DS is more powerful than PSP and way more powerful than the DSi/XL. While concrete specs may be sparse, from all the information I gather it has two CPUs which combined are faster than PSP's, a graphics chip that has way better shading capabilites than the PSP and much more total RAM. If many games don't show that due to rendering two pictures for the 3D effect does not negate it's power.

As for unreleased consoles: Vita will, from all I gather, be way more powerful than the 3DS and not really competition for it while Wii-U will be considerably more powerful than the HD twins and way more powerful than Wii.

So there you have it. Objection is not possible :P

nameless12345