They have different specs, but I think at the end of the day they are pretty comparable. Some of the PS3 exclusives seem to kick some booty, but I really do think a lot of the multiplats look as good.
I dont mean to be rude, but what's your proof. The PS3 is crazy more powerful. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 proves it. Multiplats look better on PS3 now, too, so that advantage that the 360 was supposed to have just went poof. The cell gets mocked on the site so much, but now PS3 gamers are getting the last laugh when it finally shows all the power we've been talking about. Lems, please quit claiming that your system is equal. It isn't. But teh Crozuz 2 got sparklez nd whiteness I didn't quite catch you, there.How is the ps3 more powerful than the xbox 360 if...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
How dare you ignore the power of the cell!:
lawlessx
Xbox 360 Slim includes XCGPU i.e. fusion CPU and GPU.
[QUOTE="mitu123"]Maybe for LOT, but IGN did say in their review that it runs worse on PS3:[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"] Not really lensoftruth gave a tie between the versions. and ign didn't do an analysis at all.charlesdarwin55
"Crysis 2 looks great on PS3, but a worse framerate, lower resolution, and missing effects compared to the 360 release hurt it. PS3 owners expect more."
Yeah but they didn't do an analysis at all, they just said it. I can tell you now stuff too. For example PS3 had better texture filtering which leads to the difference in resolution being neglible which it already was regardless. In fact it leads to many PS3 textures looking better, the framerate difference was as big as the difference in screen tearing and even according to df the framerate dipped more in the xbox version which might be the reason why many people have complained about the 360 version being unplayable while I played my smooth PS3 version.
Is this guy for real? Listen man are you being serious right now? Stop while you're ahead...
From Digital Foundry:
"There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches"
End of discussion.
Did you realize that the first thread you quote is from 2005.? The PS3 wasn't even out yet hell the xbox 360 wasn't even out yet,many of those claims have been proven wrong already by the way. The second one,basically confirms that Cell is a beats that can do pretty much anything,every single thing he points there is done on 360 by the GPU,in other words taking GPU cycles,and lowering maximum fill rate,there are several things on that list like Branching which were dismiss long ago. The fill rate of the 360 is almost double of the PS3 on paper how do you explain games like Uncharted 3 topping 360 games.? Either those specs are a lie or something doesn't allow the 360 to get even close to those 500 million polygons,is not magic the xbox was the same 125 million polygons but in real life with effect an all it was more like 30 million. A developer claimed that there was no way to get interaction between the different SPUs of the Cell. This heralded Sony to come in and teach a miniature lesson about what does and doesn't work with the Cell's SPUs. The interesting tidbit spoken about was branching AI on the Cell. We'll use a quote here so we don't mess up the interpretation: "Branching is a common technique...where a program randomly chooses a few samples from a larger set of options, and then tests each to see which is the best...Most developers have claimed that the SPUs would be absolutely terrible for branching. As Sony put it however, branching is absolutely terrible for ALL processors. In their experience, they said, it is less terrible for the SPUs however. In the upcoming game Heavenly Sword, they said that moving the branching AI off of the Power Processor Unit (PPU) increased the performance of that particular process. In other words, the same branching ran better on the SPUs." http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/09/sony-says-cell-can-handle-branching-for-ai-better-than-the-re/ If Branching is bad for Cell imagine how bad it would be for the xbox 360 CPU.
tormentos
To support Xenos's high polygons count, look up hardware tesseleation. Most multi-platform games doesn't use Xenos' hardware tesseleation e.g. PC development tool/content chain got hardware tesseleation support with DX11.
On "Uncharted 3 topping 360 games" subject, your comparsion statement is subjective. You don't benchmark with disimilar programs .This is like comparing 3DMarks Vantage scores on AMD Radeon HD against Metro 2033 scores on NVIDIA Geforce CUDA.
PS; one should not mix Bechalor Art (mostly subjective) students with Bachelor Science students.
On code branching issue, PPE or SPE's branching unit it less capable than "fat" Out-Of-Order CPU e.g. Intel Core 2.
PPE's branch unit about the same level as Intel Atom. PPE in CELL is nowhere near PowerPC 970FX. This is like comparing Intel Core 2 against Intel Atom. IBM PPE CPU core is about same same level as Intel Atom/ARM Cortex A8 i.e. two instruction issue per cycle with in-order processing processors.
My tablet's AMD bobcatCPU i.e. has two instruction issue per cycle with out-of-order processing. ARM Cortex A9 CPU has two instruction issue per cycle with out-of-order processing e.g. Sony Vita, Apple iPad 2.
PS; Sony Vita's has similar GPU design to AMD Xenos i.e. unifed shader, decoupled texture and shader units design.
----------------------
AMD Xenos has it's own design limitations, but let's address the NVIDIA RSX design.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-metro2033-article
"For me personally, the PS3 GPU (they like to call it RSX for some reason) was the safe choice because I was involved in the early design stages of NV40 and it's like a homeland: RSX is a direct derivative of that architecture. Reading Sony's docs it was like, 'Ha! They don't understand where those cycles are lost! They coded sub-optimal code-path in GCM for that thing!' All of that kind of stuff..."
G70's code name was NV47. RSX's architecture already existed with NV40.
Are you claiming NVIDIA G7X/RSX has decoupled texture unit and shader/math unit design before G80? Show me the docs to prove NVIDIA RSX has G80's key design improvments.
On Jawed's post
Dependent texture fetches in Xenos (I presume that's what the third point means), will work without interrupting shader code - again RSX simply can't do this, dependent texturing blocks one ALU per pipe -
Jawed's statement refers to G7X/RSX's couple texture and shader/math design.
The NVIDIA G7X/RSX pixel shader and texture unitblock.
ALU pipeline is coupled with texture unit. Texture fetch will stall "FP32 Unit 1", which in turn stalls the rest of the ALU pipeline.
The first NVIDIA decoupled texture unit and shader/math unit design was G80.
This is where NVIDIA's G80 Giga-Thread technology comes in.
Mordern GPU designs follows the flat ALU (stream processor)design.
AMD Radeon HD's stream processor block. NVIDIA G80 and AMD Xenos follows this topology.
Flat stream processor design for NVIDIA G80.
Ah Zoo Wars!! :shock:
Are you guys really going to extend this thread to 250 comments? Enough with these "PS3 is stronger than 360" and vice versa threads. :P
[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Maybe for LOT, but IGN did say in their review that it runs worse on PS3:
"Crysis 2 looks great on PS3, but a worse framerate, lower resolution, and missing effects compared to the 360 release hurt it. PS3 owners expect more."
Yeah but they didn't do an analysis at all, they just said it. I can tell you now stuff too. For example PS3 had better texture filtering which leads to the difference in resolution being neglible which it already was regardless. In fact it leads to many PS3 textures looking better, the framerate difference was as big as the difference in screen tearing and even according to df the framerate dipped more in the xbox version which might be the reason why many people have complained about the 360 version being unplayable while I played my smooth PS3 version.
Is this guy for real? Listen man are you being serious right now? Stop while you're ahead...
From Digital Foundry:
"There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches"
End of discussion.
The Ps3 version is more stable. Both LoT and DF says thisYeah but they didn't do an analysis at all, they just said it. I can tell you now stuff too. For example PS3 had better texture filtering which leads to the difference in resolution being neglible which it already was regardless. In fact it leads to many PS3 textures looking better, the framerate difference was as big as the difference in screen tearing and even according to df the framerate dipped more in the xbox version which might be the reason why many people have complained about the 360 version being unplayable while I played my smooth PS3 version.charlesdarwin55
Is this guy for real? Listen man are you being serious right now? Stop while you're ahead...
From Digital Foundry:
"There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches"
End of discussion.
The Ps3 version is more stable. Both LoT and DF says this "The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better. "
[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="T-razor1"]The Ps3 version is more stable. Both LoT and DF says this "The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better. "
Is this guy for real? Listen man are you being serious right now? Stop while you're ahead...
From Digital Foundry:
"There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches"
End of discussion.
charlesdarwin55
So the ps3 version is more stable because it holds up better in unoptimized areas that happen to affect BOTH consoles and don't even represent the majority of the game? That's like saying the ps3 will always win a couple of checkpoints/race areas of a marathon but will lose the overall race every time.
That's like begging to the crowd and onlookers to throw the runner a special medal to say, "hey look at me! I'm winning this part of the race!" The onlookers might as well throw you a bone at that point because you'd be basically begging like a dog for some attention.
Once again from Digital Foundry:
"There are parts of the game that seem to be brutally unoptimised, bringing the performance level crashing down to the point where the afflicted sections become almost unplayable.In these situations, it seems that it is the Xbox 360 version that has the most difficulties, though there's no mistaking that both platforms seem to lag badly in much the same areas."
"Put simply, on certain stages, frame-rate varies rather drastically to the point where the game can feel almost unplayable.Thankfully these areas don't account for the majority of the gameplay by any stretch of the imagination"
"On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance, but PS3 more than holds its own, bettering the Microsoft platform in some areas."
Like I said before...
End. Of. Discussion.
"The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better. "[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"] The Ps3 version is more stable. Both LoT and DF says thisT-razor1
So the ps3 version is more stable because it holds up better in unoptimized areas that happen to affect BOTH consoles and don't even represent the majority of the game? That's like saying the ps3 will always win a couple of checkpoints/race areas of a marathon but will lose the overall race every time.
That's like begging to the crowd and onlookers to throw the runner a special medal to say, "hey look at me! I'm winning this part of the race!" The onlookers might as well throw you a bone at that point because you'd be basically begging like a dog for some attention.
Once again from Digital Foundry:
"There are parts of the game that seem to be brutally unoptimised, bringing the performance level crashing down to the point where the afflicted sections become almost unplayable.In these situations, it seems that it is the Xbox 360 version that has the most difficulties, though there's no mistaking that both platforms seem to lag badly in much the same areas."
"Put simply, on certain stages, frame-rate varies rather drastically to the point where the game can feel almost unplayable.Thankfully these areas don't account for the majority of the gameplay by any stretch of the imagination"
"On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance, but PS3 more than holds its own, bettering the Microsoft platform in some areas."
Like I said before...
End. Of. Discussion.
But then the 360 version has 2% screen tearing that is just as significant as less than 1fps difference. And this isn't a race. If 360 dips more it will be more noticable. That's what you'll see, that's y u don't talk about the screen tear cause it's hardly noticable. In any case it's a crappy looking game.
Log in to comment