Console power - the truth

[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

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).

Even so 5 Cell's SPEs roughly equal a GTX 7800 which means it could be programmed to act as another GTX 7800 and in this case it would trump the 360 in graphics.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

The gamecube did not perform nearly as well as the Xbox, and i've yet to see a Wii game out perform an Xbox game as well.

I've got a Wii and this can be argued till people are blue in the face. I have it's best looking games and they look like something the Xbox could easily handle. Even Xenoblade (I have this too) looks pretty standard.

What is fact is, Nintendo went major cheap ass on the GPU of the Wii. It can't even do AA, it just plain SUCKS.

People say that here and i'll never except it. I could live with Xbox like graphics even now and the Wii doesn't stand up to that.

Darth_DuMas

Must be nice to live in fantasy land.

If you think the Wii is more capable in terms of graphics you're kidding yourself. Has a better CPU though, i'll give it that.

1. It has a PowerPC CPU running roughly at the same speed as Xbox's but a much bigger theoretical fill rate. The Xbox's CPU is just a stripped-down Celeron 733 (based on Pentium 3 though).

2. It has 88 megs of total RAM which is more than 64 megs Xbox has. Furthermore the 24 megs of 1T-SRAM are much faster than Xbox's DDR1 type RAM.

3. It's graphics chip is a further enhanced design from the GameCube's which was already very competitive to Xbox's (fixed function shaders but very flexible if you know what you're doing). Factor 5 (the guys who made Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike) themselves said there's nothing the Xbox's GPU can do that GameCube's couldn't do.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Like I said, you should probably go back and play them.

theuncharted34

I own both consoles and a ton of games for each.

I am sure.

Well, it's not like I can post screenshots of these old games, but either you're being biased or it's been a long time since you've played those xbox games and they look much better in your memory than they do in reality. Which is why I said, "maybe you should go *back* and play them."

For the record Conker Live and reloaded is the only the game that surpasses anything on the *Gamecube* let alone the Wii.

I'm not being biased, i'm being truthful. Overclocking a GC GPU isn't that useful. The Xbox had a version of the Geforce 3 Ti, it could do a lot. GC apples to apples comparison would be Splinter Cell 1, 2 and 3 in a direct comparison with the Xboxs and it doesn't look as good, the graphics had been cut back quite a bit. NGB still looks better then pretty much all Wii games.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

I own both consoles and a ton of games for each.

I am sure.

Darth_DuMas

Well, it's not like I can post screenshots of these old games, but either you're being biased or it's been a long time since you've played those xbox games and they look much better in your memory than they do in reality. Which is why I said, "maybe you should go *back* and play them."

For the record Conker Live and reloaded is the only the game that surpasses anything on the *Gamecube* let alone the Wii.

I'm not being biased, i'm being truthful. Overclocking a GC GPU isn't that useful. The Xbox had a version of the Geforce 3 Ti, it could do a lot. GC apples to apples comparison would be Splinter Cell 1, 2 and 3 in a direct comparison with the Xboxs and it doesn't look as good, the graphics had been cut back quite a bit. NGB still looks better then pretty much all Wii games.

Why don't you compare the games that actually make use of GameCube's power?

And if the GameCube could do this imagine what the Wii could do.

If there are no games to really show off it's power doesn't mean it's by any means weak (compared to Xbox 1 and PS2).

PS3's Cell processor is the only CPU i know of that can attempt the work of a GPU. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THE CELL ALONE WITHOUT A GPU CAN HANDLE A DECENT 3D SCENE ALONE.monkeysmoke

Correct, here is evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA

This scene is rendered by Cell alone.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Must be nice to live in fantasy land.

nameless12345

If you think the Wii is more capable in terms of graphics you're kidding yourself. Has a better CPU though, i'll give it that.

1. It has a PowerPC CPU running roughly at the same speed as Xbox's but a much bigger theoretical fill rate. The Xbox's CPU is just a stripped-down Celeron 733 (based on Pentium 3 though).

2. It has 88 megs of total RAM which is more than 64 megs Xbox has. Furthermore the 24 megs of 1T-SRAM are much faster than Xbox's DDR1 type RAM.

3. It's graphics chip is a further enhanced design from the GameCube's which was already very competitive to Xbox's (fixed function shaders but very flexible if you know what you're doing). Factor 5 (the guys who made Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike) themselves said there's nothing the Xbox's GPU can do that GameCube's couldn't do.

I already said the Wiis CPU was better. Ram hasn't proved a big factor for this. The Xbox had a GeForce 3 Ti.

No matter what the dev has said, the proof has been right there, I have both consoles, the Xbox has pushed the better graphics.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[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

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).

Even so 5 Cell's SPEs roughly equal a GTX 7800 which means it could be programmed to act as another GTX 7800 and in this case it would trump the 360 in graphics.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

If you think the Wii is more capable in terms of graphics you're kidding yourself. Has a better CPU though, i'll give it that.

Darth_DuMas

1. It has a PowerPC CPU running roughly at the same speed as Xbox's but a much bigger theoretical fill rate. The Xbox's CPU is just a stripped-down Celeron 733 (based on Pentium 3 though).

2. It has 88 megs of total RAM which is more than 64 megs Xbox has. Furthermore the 24 megs of 1T-SRAM are much faster than Xbox's DDR1 type RAM.

3. It's graphics chip is a further enhanced design from the GameCube's which was already very competitive to Xbox's (fixed function shaders but very flexible if you know what you're doing). Factor 5 (the guys who made Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike) themselves said there's nothing the Xbox's GPU can do that GameCube's couldn't do.

I already said the Wiis CPU was better. Ram hasn't proved a big factor for this. The Xbox had a GeForce 3 Ti.

No matter what the dev has said, the proof has been right there, I have both consoles, the Xbox has pushed the better graphics.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

If you think the Wii is more capable in terms of graphics you're kidding yourself. Has a better CPU though, i'll give it that.

Darth_DuMas

1. It has a PowerPC CPU running roughly at the same speed as Xbox's but a much bigger theoretical fill rate. The Xbox's CPU is just a stripped-down Celeron 733 (based on Pentium 3 though).

2. It has 88 megs of total RAM which is more than 64 megs Xbox has. Furthermore the 24 megs of 1T-SRAM are much faster than Xbox's DDR1 type RAM.

3. It's graphics chip is a further enhanced design from the GameCube's which was already very competitive to Xbox's (fixed function shaders but very flexible if you know what you're doing). Factor 5 (the guys who made Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike) themselves said there's nothing the Xbox's GPU can do that GameCube's couldn't do.

I already said the Wiis CPU was better. Ram hasn't proved a big factor for this. The Xbox had a GeForce 3 Ti.

No matter what the dev has said, the proof has been right there, I have both consoles, the Xbox has pushed the better graphics.

I don't recall any Wii game really tapping it out to the fullest besides perhaps Monster Hunter Tri. It's not like there are many devs on the Wii that would really try to push it (like Rare and Factor 5 were on the previous Nintendo systems).

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Those charts are very misleading as far as the Playstation Cpu's go.

theuncharted34

But they aren't being used for normal Cpu operations >.> So the chart is pointless. Not to mention it's not taking into account the cell's Spe's or the emotion engine's vector units. Which would be like chopping a Cpu into 4ths :lol:

That is why it's misleading and doesn't mean anything.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

I own both consoles and a ton of games for each.

I am sure.

Darth_DuMas

Well, it's not like I can post screenshots of these old games, but either you're being biased or it's been a long time since you've played those xbox games and they look much better in your memory than they do in reality. Which is why I said, "maybe you should go *back* and play them."

For the record Conker Live and reloaded is the only the game that surpasses anything on the *Gamecube* let alone the Wii.

I'm not being biased, i'm being truthful. Overclocking a GC GPU isn't that useful.The Xbox had a version of the Geforce 3 Ti, it could do a lot. GC apples to apples comparison would be Splinter Cell 1, 2 and 3 in a direct comparison with the Xboxs and it doesn't look as good, the graphics had been cut back quite a bit. NGB still looks better then pretty much all Wii games.

Wut? Overclocking any Gpu gives it extra power. :?Okay, and the gamecube had the flipper Gpu with higher bandwidth than the xbox's gpu. By "could do a lot" you might mean the programmable shaders, which could be done on the gamecube as well, by using the "tev" (texture environment engine).

The Cpu was an outdated 1998 pentium architecture that only was as strong as the Gamecube's gekko Cpu because of the sheer difference in Mhz. The gamcube also had much faster 1T-SRAM, which had no bottlenecking whatsoever.

Which is why the gamecube was so close the xbox, it had less horsepower but the architecture was more advanced. What do you get when you have the Xbox's clock speeds, the gamecube's architecture, and more RAM than the xbox? That's right, more power.

All I can say is go back and play the games side by side, or stop having being biased towards the xbox. I'm done talking about last gen console hardware.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

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).

04dcarraher

Even so 5 Cell's SPEs roughly equal a GTX 7800 which means it could be programmed to act as another GTX 7800 and in this case it would trump the 360 in graphics.

Depends what type of game would it be running. I don't see why a rail shooter wouldn't work since those don't require much processing power and more resources can be used for graphics.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] No its correct , the chart is showing MIPS Millions of instructions per second, which is used for normal cpu performance comparison. The Cell or Sony's big numbers is based on theoretical numbers which based one a linear single compute numbers which is GFLOPS Also The Cell can never reach those numbers abecause of memory limits. 04dcarraher

But they aren't being used for normal Cpu operations >.> So the chart is pointless. Not to mention it's not taking into account the cell's Spe's or the emotion engine's vector units. Which would be like chopping a Cpu into 4ths :lol:

That is why it's misleading and doesn't mean anything.

Okay, so you basically just addmited that the chart doesn't take into account the spe's. That's the lion's share of the cell's power >.> Which was my point, you didn't add anything with this post.

Let me say this again. The chart *only* takes into account normal Cpu operations, the Spe's don't do that. Therefore your chart isn't telling the whole story and is useless.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Well, it's not like I can post screenshots of these old games, but either you're being biased or it's been a long time since you've played those xbox games and they look much better in your memory than they do in reality. Which is why I said, "maybe you should go *back* and play them."

For the record Conker Live and reloaded is the only the game that surpasses anything on the *Gamecube* let alone the Wii.

nameless12345

I'm not being biased, i'm being truthful. Overclocking a GC GPU isn't that useful. The Xbox had a version of the Geforce 3 Ti, it could do a lot. GC apples to apples comparison would be Splinter Cell 1, 2 and 3 in a direct comparison with the Xboxs and it doesn't look as good, the graphics had been cut back quite a bit. NGB still looks better then pretty much all Wii games.

Why don't you compare the games that actually make use of GameCube's power?

And if the GameCube could do this imagine what the Wii could do.

If there are no games to really show off it's power doesn't mean it's by any means weak (compared to Xbox 1 and PS2).

What you think the Xbox can't do that?

Didn't mean to say it's weak compared to the Xbox, but it hasn't graphically out performed it.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

I'm not being biased, i'm being truthful. Overclocking a GC GPU isn't that useful. The Xbox had a version of the Geforce 3 Ti, it could do a lot. GC apples to apples comparison would be Splinter Cell 1, 2 and 3 in a direct comparison with the Xboxs and it doesn't look as good, the graphics had been cut back quite a bit. NGB still looks better then pretty much all Wii games.

Darth_DuMas

Why don't you compare the games that actually make use of GameCube's power?

And if the GameCube could do this imagine what the Wii could do.

If there are no games to really show off it's power doesn't mean it's by any means weak (compared to Xbox 1 and PS2).

What you think the Xbox can't do that?

Didn't mean to say it's weak compared to the Xbox, but it hasn't graphically out performed it.

And I didn't say the Xbox wasn't better than GameCube but simply that their GPUs were comparable in what could be done on them.

[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"]PS3's Cell processor is the only CPU i know of that can attempt the work of a GPU. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THE CELL ALONE WITHOUT A GPU CAN HANDLE A DECENT 3D SCENE ALONE.nameless12345

Correct, here is evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehwFOM4CBKA

This scene is rendered by Cell alone.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Even so 5 Cell's SPEs roughly equal a GTX 7800 which means it could be programmed to act as another GTX 7800 and in this case it would trump the 360 in graphics.

nameless12345

Depends what type of game would it be running. I don't see why a rail shooter wouldn't work since those don't require much processing power and more resources can be used for graphics.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[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

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).

Even so 5 Cell's SPEs roughly equal a GTX 7800 which means it could be programmed to act as another GTX 7800 and in this case it would trump the 360 in graphics.

On deferred shading (with no other GPU workloads), 5 SPUs is roughly equals 7800 GTX. Note that UE3 PC is NVIDIA "The Way it's Meant To Be Played" engine i.e. includes G7X workarounds.

You have 1 SPU + 1 PPE for other userland workloads. 7th SPU is not for userland programs. Xbox 360 still has 3 PPEs for userland programs.

7800 GTX(430Mhz G70) is a low target to hit i.e. it can't sustain full 32bit FP compute DX9c performance hence NVIDIA's kitbash "The Way it's Meant To Be Played" DX9c profile.

At GPU bound 2569x1600 resolution, Radeon X1950 XTX (29.8 FPS)almost doubles the frame rates over NVIDIA Geforce 7900GTX (16.6FPS).

------------

Assassins Creed, Radeon X1950 XTX (25 FPS) beats GeForce 7900GTX(12.8 FPS)

Call Of Duty 4, Radeon X1950 XTX (65.3 FPS) beats GeForce 7900GTX (32.8 FPS)

Note that Fold @ Home GPU1 uses DX9c and Radeon X1900 killed Geforce 7xx0 (slower than that era's X86 CPUs).

Xbox 360 and PS3 is about the same in performance.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

Well, it's not like I can post screenshots of these old games, but either you're being biased or it's been a long time since you've played those xbox games and they look much better in your memory than they do in reality. Which is why I said, "maybe you should go *back* and play them."

For the record Conker Live and reloaded is the only the game that surpasses anything on the *Gamecube* let alone the Wii.

theuncharted34

I'm not being biased, i'm being truthful. Overclocking a GC GPU isn't that useful.The Xbox had a version of the Geforce 3 Ti, it could do a lot. GC apples to apples comparison would be Splinter Cell 1, 2 and 3 in a direct comparison with the Xboxs and it doesn't look as good, the graphics had been cut back quite a bit. NGB still looks better then pretty much all Wii games.

Wut? Overclocking any Gpu gives it extra power. :?Okay, and the gamecube had the flipper Gpu with higher bandwidth than the xbox's gpu. By "could do a lot" you might mean the programmable shaders, which could be done on the gamecube as well, by using the "tev" (texture environment engine).

The Cpu was an outdated 1998 pentium architecture that only was as strong as the Gamecube's gekko Cpu because of the sheer difference in Mhz. The gamcube also had much faster 1T-SRAM, which had no bottlenecking whatsoever.

Which is why the gamecube was so close the xbox, it had less horsepower but the architecture was more advanced. What do you get when you have the Xbox's clock speeds, the gamecube's architecture, and more RAM than the xbox? That's right, more power.

All I can say is go back and play the games side by side, or stop having being biased towards the xbox. I'm done talking about last gen console hardware.

I said the Wii CPU was better.

The Xbox had 64MB of Unified RAM and could cache to the HDD. It wasn't a slouch.

The Gamecube was close, and so is the Wii. It's not better (graphically). I'm not being biased I really wanted the Wii to perform better and I waited so long, i'm not gonna lie about it to myself though. It's not even PS3/360 close it just plain doesn't quite look as good.

I didn't ask you to qoute me. If you had something to say and I didn't want to get into it, I wouldn't qoute you.

I obviously had something to say about this. Whether you agree or not.

Earth to Lems: multiplats don't show the power of nuthin.

The lead system almost always gets the better version. Period. That's why FF13 and LA Noire looked hella better on PS3. Killzone 3 looks better the Crysis 2 and most 360 Exclusives are sub HD. /thread

Earth to Lems: multiplats don't show the power of nuthin.

The lead system almost always gets the better version. Period. That's why FF13 and LA Noire looked hella better on PS3. Killzone 3 looks better the Crysis 2 and most 360 Exclusives are sub HD. /thread

Pray_to_me

[QUOTE="Golden_Boy187"]

gears 3 looks better than anything on PS3.

planbfreak4eva

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Why don't you compare the games that actually make use of GameCube's power?

And if the GameCube could do this imagine what the Wii could do.

If there are no games to really show off it's power doesn't mean it's by any means weak (compared to Xbox 1 and PS2).

nameless12345

What you think the Xbox can't do that?

Didn't mean to say it's weak compared to the Xbox, but it hasn't graphically out performed it.

And I didn't say the Xbox wasn't better than GameCube but simply that their GPUs were comparable in what could be done on them.

:P I'm still disputing that the Wii is more capable graphically. I just havn't seen the evidence from the actual games I own.

But I am sure that it's more capable with it's CPU, the evidence is there. It does allow for better physics. Boom Blox proves this. I don't think the Xbox could pull off that games physics. EA said every other clock cycle was used to process the physics.

Earth to Lems: multiplats don't show the power of nuthin.

The lead system almost always gets the better version. Period. That's why FF13 and LA Noire looked hella better on PS3. Killzone 3 looks better the Crysis 2 and most 360 Exclusives are sub HD. /thread

Pray_to_me

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

ppl need to sop acting like carmack is a god. He's good but not that good.

[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. :(

painguy1

ppl need to sop acting like carmack is a god. He's good but not that good.

Oh, but he is a god.

He built id tech 5 and squeezed RAGE out of 6 year old hardware! :o

Bow down to your god, mortal.

[spoiler] :P Besides, You don't have to hear it from Carmack to know the two consoles are equal. [/spoiler]

[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. :(

painguy1

ppl need to sop acting like carmack is a god. He's good but not that good.

@ ronvalencia Errr....... Can i ask you a question? How did SONY archieve the best looking games yet on console for the PS3 (Killzone 3, God of War 3, Unchartet 2) with all those moving every s*** to spu bla bla bla you're saying :| . While 360 got noting looking good as ps3 exclusives :( crysis 2 that comes close is even sub HD and runs below 30fps :| ....to much power for the 360 indeed :P

monkeysmoke

For hardware performance, we don't compare artworks.

Your compare method is like comparing Metro 2033 PC with XYZ hardware VS Crysis 2 PC with ABC hardware, which would be a joke in the IT world.

Art critics has no place in pure hardware performance benchmarking..

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[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. :(

ferret-gamer

ppl need to sop acting like carmack is a god. He's good but not that good.

JC's statement is the same as the the David Shippy (chief architect)'s statement for Xbox 360's PPE X3 and PS3's CELL processors.

But can Shippy's insight on both console's processors finally answer the age-old debate about which console is actually more powerful?

"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores… it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."

So here we go again fighting over a couple of pixels.

According to all the experts that have commented on this subject, including hardware developers, programmers and analysts. The conclusion is that the PS3 and the 360 are more or less equal in power.

There are some things the PS3 does better cause of the more powerful CPU (What Carmack ACTUALLY said was that the PS3 has a higher theoretical processing power while the 360 has a higher capacity when it comes to render graphics) and there are things the 360 does better cause of its more powerful GPU.

1. most multiplats are better on the 360 - False, most multiplats are identical and thus represented by the identical review scores.

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king- False everyone knows the Uncharted series is the best graphical acheivement.

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power. False again, the 360s architecture is easier to program on, not on par.

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

MozartXVI

[QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

1. most multiplats are better on the 360 - False, most multiplats are identical and thus represented by the identical review scores.

2. crysis 2 on the 360 is the current graphics king- False everyone knows the Uncharted series is the best graphical acheivement.

3. carmack stated that the two consoles are pretty much equal in power. False again, the 360s architecture is easier to program on, not on par.

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

clr84651

Your argument is not very convincing. But then you'd probably need at least a 20 page report to make it start looking like a convincing argument, that's coming from someone who's done parallel programming in environments similar to the Cell. The architecture of these machines is not something you can analyse in two or three paragraphs. But then it probably wasn't your intention to prove something as it was to convince people of something you believe in.

I can kinda agree with that. But the 360 multiplat games do look better on 360.

whatever the ps3 can do the 360 can do and vice versa, its that simpleTH1Sx1SxSPARTA

Let's wait that The Last Guardian comes out before we make such conclusions ;)

:P I'm still disputing that the Wii is more capable graphically. I just havn't seen the evidence from the actual games I own.

But I am sure that it's more capable with it's CPU, the evidence is there. It does allow for better physics. Boom Blox proves this. I don't think the Xbox could pull off that games physics. EA said every other clock cycle was used to process the physics.

Darth_DuMas

The fact of the matter is that the GameCube had a superior 64-bit architecture and PowerPC CPU (the same kind used in all three current-gen consoles, but just at higher clock speeds), while the Xbox was using outdated (even for its time) 32-bit architecture and Pentium III CPU. The only reason the Xbox was comparable to the GameCube was because its CPU and GPU were clocked at higher speeds (but only slightly in the GPU's case) and it had slightly more (but slower) RAM.

PS3 and 360 are exactly the same.Fizzman

Exactly. Even John Carmack admitted 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

[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's not the console for best looking exclusives anymore...look at such upcoming games like Gears of War 3 & Forza 4.

[QUOTE="TH1Sx1SxSPARTA"]whatever the ps3 can do the 360 can do and vice versa, its that simplenameless12345

Let's wait that The Last Guardian comes out before we make such conclusions ;)

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

:P I'm still disputing that the Wii is more capable graphically. I just havn't seen the evidence from the actual games I own.

But I am sure that it's more capable with it's CPU, the evidence is there. It does allow for better physics. Boom Blox proves this. I don't think the Xbox could pull off that games physics. EA said every other clock cycle was used to process the physics.

Jag85

The fact of the matter is that the GameCube had a superior 64-bit architecture and PowerPC CPU (the same kind used in all three current-gen consoles, but just at higher clock speeds), while the Xbox was using outdated (even for its time) 32-bit architecture and Pentium III CPU. The only reason the Xbox was comparable to the GameCube was because its CPU and GPU were clocked at higher speeds (but only slightly in the GPU's case) and it had slightly more (but slower) RAM.

When it came to graphics that came kind of close, but not better than an Xbox game.

I suppose that was an example of when a dev pushed the GameCube.

Why do people say "let alone the Wii" (no offense to anyone) i've seen nothing on the Wii that looks noticably better than the GameCube, just more widescreen games.