I'm no tech expert, which console is more powerful

I had an Xbox360 and it broke, while I had it, there were some great games with some really nice effects, gears of war 2 really showed off the system. The textures of the buildings and the textures of the characters are amazing. I have noticed that on the PS3 that I just bought that the textures aren't quite as nice, to a minimal extent, but there is a noticeable difference(or atleast perceived by me) in the amount of things that can happen on screen at once. In several of the ps3 exclusive games I've played it's just remarkable how many objects can be moving at the same time. So it seems like one system can produce higher level visuals (Xbox) while one can produce more things interacting with each other on screen at the same time(PS3). I'm just wondering if this difference is due to a difference in processing capabilities of the two machines or if I am just purely imagining things.

You are just imagining things. Nobody knows which is more powerful , but most would agree that Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 are the top 2 best looking games on consoles. That doesn't really prove that the ps3 is more powerful , but it does show that the big Sony devs aren't fooling around. They are really trying to take advantage of what they working with. And that's what a platform holder should be doing.

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

Could the 360 process games like U2 or Killzone 2, funny that you mention that because I don't have either yet. I just got the back library of exclusives used (MGS4 etc.)robokill

i think i believe ps3 is tad more powerful then the 360 and why? cos u get people ranting saying there equal but i dont think its true indeed 360 is powerful then RSX but since the CPu just like any other pc at there it pretty much cant do nothing developers can only squeese as much as i can just from the 360 gpu where the ps3 is a GPUCPU processor its still going better then the 360 they might have used like 80% of the cells power but they havent ultilised the RSX

PS3 has a more powerful CPU than the 360, but the 360 has a better GPU and more RAM. PS3 kind makes up for it because its CPU has a exotic architecture which lets you process other things apart from aritnmetical and logic operations. In reality, they're capable of the same things. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, or believe stupid propaganda like "ONLY POSSIBLE ON x CONSOLE". Well the wii, that's another story.dont-read-this

Each HD console has pros and cons over the other and the Wii is obviously the less powerfull one. At the end i think its something like:

PS3 = 360 >>>>>>> Wii

The 360 has more RAM. dont-read-this

They both have the same RAM, 512 megs.Yes, There is differences on how it's used per console, but they have the same 512.

They are both about equal, with ups and downs. As far as onscreen action, how many games have more enemies onscreen at once than Dead Rising? I cant think of any.

cell is leaps and bounds more powerfull than 360's cpu.

i agree that 360 has a better gpu, but the lack of the processing power on 360 the gpu cant go where the RSX has been with ps3.

just look at GOW3 for example, its just looks amazing for a console game, so do other ps3 exclusives.

Each HD console has pros and cons over the other and the Wii is obviously the less powerfull one. At the end i think its something like:

PS3 = 360 >>>>>>>>>Iphone>>>> Wii

PAL360

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Each HD console has pros and cons over the other and the Wii is obviously the less powerfull one. At the end i think its something like:

PS3>360 >>>>>>>>>Iphone>>>> Wii

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Each HD console has pros and cons over the other and the Wii is obviously the less powerfull one. At the end i think its something like:

PS3>360 >>>>>>>>>Iphone>>>> Wii

If you can write highly parallel code, then the PS3 is more powerful. However, real-world code isn't always so easy to multithread efficiently.lowe0

cell is leaps and bounds more powerfull than 360's cpu.

i agree that 360 has a better gpu, but the lack of the processing power on 360 the gpu cant go where the RSX has been with ps3.

just look at GOW3 for example, its just looks amazing for a console game, so do other ps3 exclusives.

ZoomZoom2490

Note why Xbox 360's GPU includes tessellation hardware.

It's strange that Xbox 360's AvP or Dirt 2 versions didn't use it's tessellation hardware, while PC DX11 versions uses tessellation hardware i.e. AMD gave money to devs for DX11 support.

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

cell is leaps and bounds more powerfull than 360's cpu.

i agree that 360 has a better gpu, but the lack of the processing power on 360 the gpu cant go where the RSX has been with ps3.

just look at GOW3 for example, its just looks amazing for a console game, so do other ps3 exclusives.

ronvalencia

Note why Xbox 360's GPU includes tessellation hardware.

It's strange that Xbox 360's AvP or Dirt 2 versions didn't use it's tessellation hardware, while PC DX11 versions uses tessellation hardware i.e. AMD gave money to devs for DX11 support.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"]

cell is leaps and bounds more powerfull than 360's cpu.

i agree that 360 has a better gpu, but the lack of the processing power on 360 the gpu cant go where the RSX has been with ps3.

just look at GOW3 for example, its just looks amazing for a console game, so do other ps3 exclusives.

ZoomZoom2490

Note why Xbox 360's GPU includes tessellation hardware.

It's strange that Xbox 360's AvP or Dirt 2 versions didn't use it's tessellation hardware, while PC DX11 versions uses tessellation hardware i.e. AMD gave money to devs for DX11 support.

"x360 gpu"(Xenos) can run tessellation. Please dont make me laugh on your ignorance. ATI Xenos includes tessellation hardware but it's not compliant to DX11 tessellation.

Note that DX11 enhanced games come after XBox 360 game releases i.e. needs additional R&D.

Anyway, ATI R600's tessellation demos still runs on Radeon HD 5000 series' tessellation hardware. We know ATI R600 tessellation is a superset of ATI Xenos's tessellation unit.

If ATI has "The Way it's Meant to Played"(NVAPI**) wedge, NVIDIA would been KO'ed long time ago. Let's see AMD's AMD64 style wedge can be applied to ATI GPUs i.e. AMD's development relationships is greater than ATI.

NVAPI includes NVIDIA's own DX10 superset i.e. DX10 with some DX10.1 features, but still fails DX10.1, thus making a non-standard DX10.

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

SolidTy

They are so close trying to distinguish which is more powerful is pointless.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]If you can write highly parallel code, then the PS3 is more powerful. However, real-world code isn't always so easy to multithread efficiently.ronvalencia

48

PC by a long shot

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

jyoung312

I think the PS3 has more power, but it's very tough to exploit...in any event, the PS3 has the edge for sure.

It's hard to determine how much "more power" the PS3 has, since this generation isn't over. 360 may surprise us, and the PS3 may surprise us even more. Right now, KZ2 and Uncharted 2 definitely demonstrate some great console graphics, no doubt.

As far as games not out yet, that's how that cookie crumbles. We need to be able to scrutinize, test, and compare them before making declarations. In the end KZ2 certainly wowed many a gamer and critics alike.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

jyoung312

Honestly they are both about the same, they are both sitting on 512mbs of ram, so they can both have the same active running game material at the same time. Its more on how you use that material that makes a difference. Granted there is a slight more ram to work with on 360, due to the edram and smaller os, which has been the biggest contender with multiplats looking better on 360.

[QUOTE="jyoung312"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

SolidTy

I think the PS3 has more power, but it's very tough to exploit...in any event, the PS3 has the edge for sure.

It's hard to determine how much "more power" the PS3 has, since this generation isn't over. 360 may surprise us, and the PS3 may surprise us even more. Right now, KZ2 and Uncharted 2 definitely demonstrate some great console graphics, no doubt.

As far as games not out yet, that's how that cookie crumbles. We need to be able to scrutinize, test, and compare them before making declarations. In the end KZ2 certainly wowed many a gamer and critics alike.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="lowe0"]If you can write highly parallel code, then the PS3 is more powerful. However, real-world code isn't always so easy to multithread efficiently.MC3887

48

Sigh... It has 48 shaders(or stream processors)and 64 threads (1). Notice NVIDIA's Giga-Threads (thousands)(1) count far exceeds it's CUDA stream processor count.

1. think of Hyper-Threading for GPUs.

Anyway, each of Xeno's 48 shaders(SP) handles 1 + 4 vec i.e. processes 5 data components, that's 240 data components. ATI Radeon HD 2900/3800/4600 has 320 stream processors(SP), each SP is scalar i.e. 1 instruction 1 data, that's 320 data components.

6SPE+RSX vs ATI Radeon HD 4650 vs ATI Xenos would be interesting since they are all equipped with 8 ROPs and plenty of GFLOPs (for low-mid-range segment).

[QUOTE="jyoung312"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

GulliversTravel

Honestly they are both about the same, they are both sitting on 512mbs of ram, so they can both have the same active running game material at the same time. Its more on how you use that material that makes a difference. Granted there is a slight more ram to work with on 360, due to the edram and smaller os, which has been the biggest contender with multiplats looking better on 360.

savagetwinkie

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]

Honestly they are both about the same, they are both sitting on 512mbs of ram, so they can both have the same active running game material at the same time. Its more on how you use that material that makes a difference. Granted there is a slight more ram to work with on 360, due to the edram and smaller os, which has been the biggest contender with multiplats looking better on 360.

ZoomZoom2490

EDIT: and exclusives aren't proof of which is more powerful, its just proof of what one is capable of, not what the other isn't capable of, and multiplats are the best way to measure up which system is more powerful. Now that people are getting a hold of the ps3 it should be a more realistic comparison. But you can't compare games like gears of war 2 to uncharted 2, they are different games, made at different times, with different level designs, and different effects. Multiplats are the only true way to tell because both are trying to render the same thing, and now you can see which one is really rendering it better.

I'm waitinf for crysis 2 to come out, cryengine is obviously a grahics juggernaut and it will be probably one of the best compairsons to really see the two systems side by side.

Cows and lemmings stop this nonsense already.

Cows like to talk about how powerful the cell is when in reality it is nothing to boost about. In terms of processing power it is a step above the xenon though.

Lemmings like to emphasize the gpu aka xenos. While it is more powerful than the gpu found in the PS3 it is nothing to boost about either.

At the end of the day they are both pretty much equal in power which also has been confirmed by, hardware and software developers.

The advantage of the cell would give you better AI, better physics, animations, lightningetc.

The advantage of the Xenos would give you a cleaner picture, resolution, framerate, textures.

That said a game optimized forone console would not run well without sacrifices being made to run on the other.

Currently the PS3 has shown it can do more, but both systems have not been fully tapped and therefore cannot show their true power.

Cows and lemmings stop this nonsense already.

Cows like to talk about how powerful the cell is when in reality it is nothing to boost about. In terms of processing power it is a step above the xenon though.

Lemmings like to emphasize the gpu aka xenos. While it is more powerful than the gpu found in the PS3 it is nothing to boost about either.

At the end of the day they are both pretty much equal in power which also has been confirmed by, hardware and software developers.

The advantage of the cell would give you better AI, better physics, animations, lightningetc.

The advantage of the Xenos would give you a cleaner picture, resolution, framerate, textures.

That said a game optimized forone console would not run well without sacrifices being made to run on the other.

fireballonfire

Best benchmark practises it to have common benchmarks for each of the platforms i.e. like SPECInt/SPECFP. Hopefully, Cryengine 3/Crysis 2 can be used for this role.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

Each HD console has pros and cons over the other and the Wii is obviously the less powerfull one. At the end i think its something like:

PS3>360 >>>>>>>>>Iphone>>>> Wii

ZoomZoom2490

[QUOTE="ZoomZoom2490"][QUOTE="stereointegrity"]there i fixed it

Hathesulacon

But you don't have pre-alpha screens of God of War 3, do you? Stop blowing air.

Iphone is not more powerful than Wii..brandontwb

People will quote articles, talk tech specs, and even quote that M$ propaganda IGN link...but in the end, they are pretty close. One machine seems to have a slight edge, HOWEVER it's hard to tap all the juice. The other is comparable, and devs don't have to work as hard.

2007's Uncharted wowed a lot of folks, but it wasn't enough...KZ2 looks incredible but was considered a possible fluke due to 3 1/2 years dev time, and finally PS3's Uncharted 2 sealed the deal demonstrating the PS3 graphics are the top in consoles right now. On the flip side, these games might be possible on 360, but we will never know since they are all made by Sony, and what matters is that the PS3 has demonstrated this. The results.

The results speak for themselves.

People can say anyone is as good an athlete as Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant, but in the end, it's about the results. Perhaps the 360 will slam back with a shot this year, but in the meantime talking about maybe's just won't cut it. It's all about the results.

I do confess, 2006's GeoW was amazing to see in it's day...and 2008's GeoW2 was even better as it was slightly improved, but that was the last shot in the console graphics war we've seen. This year's super delayed games, Alan Wake and Splinter Cell : Conviction have a chance to wow us.

SolidTy

congratz on winning in gamespotter of the year and king of SW

From a very far out hypothetical standpoint the ps3 seems to have the potential to be more powerful. from a much more down to earth developmental stance the 360 wins. If you gave a comparable 360, and ps3 team the same amount of development hours to create the same game I believe the 360's game would look better.

From a consumer standpoint it's just nitpicking both systems are practically identical in terms of graphics.