Is the PS3 really technologically superior?

[QUOTE="benkatz47"]

Just wait for MGS 4 and ESPECIALLY HAZE, and then continue talking on this thread. Basically, everything till the launch of Metal Gear Sold 4, Haze, or even Killzone 2 (and MAYBE also Resistance 2) can be considered speculation.

PS3 however is technologically superior full stop. 360 can be viewd as a console that uses more ore less standard technology, but very powerful "standard technology", whil PS3 uses less conventional techonlogy (cell processor and the way it works together with the RSX gpu) but again very powerful and theoretically capable of so much more. Also, ps3 has blu ray, and even though you can buy an external HD DVD drive for the 360 (which would make it more expensive overall than even the most expensive ps3), who cares? hd-dvd has less storage space (except of the triple layer which is as much as the dual layer blu ray, but quad layer blu ray is on it's way), and is slowly dying.

Ps3 runs games off of bly ray discs, which in the near future will be a huge advantage over the standard dvd-reading 360, cos there simply will be games that will take over 8 gigs of info (dual layer dvd), so games WILL get more complex on the ps3 than 360.

But again, untill we don't see the before mentioned ps3 exclusives, we can't tell if ps3's technological advance is really useful or not.

But if these games will use the resources appropriately and use the blu ray space appropriately (10-15 gigs at least) , i thin we'll be looking at some (or at least ONE) game that will probably look better than the 360 will ever be capable of pulling of.

Everything is a big IF:

ps3 out selling the 360

ps3 getting better games than 360

ps3 being technologically advanced, and seeing it in games as well, besides on paper wher it ACTUALLY IS!

and this is because of 2 reasons:

1) 360 has a full year advantage (which is a lot, especially in the sales domain)

2) 2008 is expected to be the year of the ps3....and it barely started so HAVE PATIENCE!!

batman4y2k

Pwn3d, to all you 360 people who think you are the Shi* for having a shi**y console, your days are numbered 360 tick tock

it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any daythegoldenpoo

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

It is inferior to 360, because it has a last gen GPU and less ram, and only one CPU core, but it is superior to Wiisaolin323

:shock:

[QUOTE="saolin323"]It is inferior to 360, because it has a last gen GPU and less ram, and only one CPU core, but it is superior to WiiPBSnipes

Uh, no, the Xenos PWNS the RSX in almost every category, look it up and see for yourself.

As far as RAM goes, the 360 also has the advantsge here, because it has more available RAM and more flexible because the PS3 has 2 pools of RAM, 256MB for System Memory and 256MB for Video Memory, the 360's RAM pool is unified.

I agree 100% with the CPU architecture being hard to compare with normal GP Processors.

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any daybenkatz47

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

[QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any daybenkatz47

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

that's a very stupid statement. And that's no way to prove your point. Don't forget one thing: the cell processor is made for gaming and handling physix. And you can search it ALL OVER THE WEB, really easily, just by googeling (that's why i won't give a link), how the cell can handle such operations required for gaming. And thus, in gaming (cos ps3 is a GAMING CONSOLE, you dumb person! i'm reffering solely to the gaming performance), cell is far better than core 2 duo, and even quad core (again, GOOGLE IT)

[QUOTE="-wii60-"]
Actually the one without any idea is you, A core duo is better than the cell, Out order processor > in order processor.
benkatz47

that's a very stupid statement.

[QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any daybenkatz47

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

that's a very stupid statement. And that's no way to prove your point. Don't forget one thing: the cell processor is made for gaming and handling physix. And you can search it ALL OVER THE WEB, really easily, just by googeling (that's why i won't give a link), how the cell can handle such operations required for gaming. And thus, in gaming (cos ps3 is a GAMING CONSOLE, you dumb person! i'm reffering solely to the gaming performance), cell is far better than core 2 duo, and even quad core (again, GOOGLE IT)

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

So 2 sum up, i think it's best to temporarily close this thread, and re open it once ps3's big hits will be launched, so we can see how much of the ps3's capabilities they will use, and how will it turn out.

Till then, it's rather easy: on paper, overall, undeniably, ps3 is superior (it's not a personal opinion, its simply comparing the 2 papers ps3/360)

Any claims otherwise are unfounded or fanboy-ish.

I'm saying that because it's simply like that: Ps3 has better technology on paper, i'm not saying it's more powerful, nor that it can handle it better, that's why im looking forward at this year. (that to prove i'm not a fanboy, i'm just being realistic)

So 2 sum up, i think it's best to temporarily close this thread, and re open it once ps3's big hits will be launched, so we can see how much of the ps3's capabilities they will use, and how will it turn out.

Till then, it's rather easy: on paper, overall, undeniably, ps3 is superior (it's not a personal opinion, its simply comparing the 2 papers ps3/360)

Any claims otherwise are unfounded or fanboy-ish.

I'm saying that because it's simply like that: Ps3 has better technology on paper, i'm not saying it's more powerful, nor that it can handle it better, that's why im looking forward at this year. (that to prove i'm not a fanboy, i'm just being realistic)

benkatz47

[QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any dayNagidar

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

that's a very stupid statement. And that's no way to prove your point. Don't forget one thing: the cell processor is made for gaming and handling physix. And you can search it ALL OVER THE WEB, really easily, just by googeling (that's why i won't give a link), how the cell can handle such operations required for gaming. And thus, in gaming (cos ps3 is a GAMING CONSOLE, you dumb person! i'm reffering solely to the gaming performance), cell is far better than core 2 duo, and even quad core (again, GOOGLE IT)

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Oh yeah! RIGHT RIGHT! Sony ar such idiots! They have no idea nothing about gaming! AMATEURES! using an ASYMETRICAL PROCESSOR!!! stupid idiots!

YOU SHOULD BE APPOINTED HEAD OF SONY! KING OF SONY ACTUALLY!

sarcasm and irony

your statement is probably the most unfounded and stupid i've ever heard.

i'd rather take that in order/out order processors non sense :))

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any daybenkatz47

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

that's a very stupid statement. And that's no way to prove your point. Don't forget one thing: the cell processor is made for gaming and handling physix. And you can search it ALL OVER THE WEB, really easily, just by googeling (that's why i won't give a link), how the cell can handle such operations required for gaming. And thus, in gaming (cos ps3 is a GAMING CONSOLE, you dumb person! i'm reffering solely to the gaming performance), cell is far better than core 2 duo, and even quad core (again, GOOGLE IT)

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Oh yeah! RIGHT RIGHT! Sony ar such idiots! They have no idea nothing about gaming! AMATEURES! using an ASYMETRICAL PROCESSOR!!! stupid idiots!

YOU SHOULD BE APPOINTED HEAD OF SONY! KING OF SONY ACTUALLY!

sarcasm and irony

your statement is probably the most unfounded and stupid i've ever heard.

i'd rather take that in order/out order processors non sense :))

Quit being an idiot and do some research.

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Nagidar

[QUOTE="benkatz47"]

So 2 sum up, i think it's best to temporarily close this thread, and re open it once ps3's big hits will be launched, so we can see how much of the ps3's capabilities they will use, and how will it turn out.

Till then, it's rather easy: on paper, overall, undeniably, ps3 is superior (it's not a personal opinion, its simply comparing the 2 papers ps3/360)

Any claims otherwise are unfounded or fanboy-ish.

I'm saying that because it's simply like that: Ps3 has better technology on paper, i'm not saying it's more powerful, nor that it can handle it better, that's why im looking forward at this year. (that to prove i'm not a fanboy, i'm just being realistic)

-wii60-

Oh really?

Ok, let's let aside the cpu and gpu, (and the fact that in the ps3 the cpu and gpu work together in a rather MORE ADVANCED if not revolutionary way than the 360).

Ps3 has blue ray FOR GAMING. What kind of media do 360 games come in?

Ps3 supports kb plus mouse

Ps3 has integrated wifi

Ps3 has 1.3 hdmi (and hdmi from the start, inlike 360), whilst 360 jut put in a 1.2 hdmi

Ps3 has optical audio input

Ps3 can do 1080p, while 360 (elite) just recently added this feature

Ps3 can surf the net

Ps3 accepts other OS (linux)

Ps3 has divx

Now we move on to what the 360 has and the ps3 hasn't:

...

...

...

2 usbs as opposed to 4 ?

no card reader?

...hd dvd (optional)? (how useful is that anyway, it's almost dead)

oh yeah...33% failure rate due to overheating AND...

.....dum dum dum!!! HALO 3!!

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Teufelhuhn

Nope, the whole reason I said "Practical" is because to program for an Asymetrical Processor takes alot more time and resources, which can lead to bad games because devs just don't want to spend the cash or deal with how hard it is to program.

[QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

[QUOTE="thegoldenpoo"]it areas yes, but its bottle-necked just where it hurts. BTW the cell is not the revolution its billed to be. most technology experts regard the two as almost equal, with the ps3 having the slight egde. since core2 duo ant the 8800 its become clear that most mid to high end pc's can outprocess the 'mighty cell' any dayNagidar

mid to hiogh end pcs can OUTPROCESS the cell? (cpu-wise). -no talking about gpu, CPU solely-

Kid, go home, you have no idea what you're talking about, honestly.

Go read a book! "Core 2 duo can outprocess a Cell processor (8 cores)"

that's just....sad...really

that's a very stupid statement. And that's no way to prove your point. Don't forget one thing: the cell processor is made for gaming and handling physix. And you can search it ALL OVER THE WEB, really easily, just by googeling (that's why i won't give a link), how the cell can handle such operations required for gaming. And thus, in gaming (cos ps3 is a GAMING CONSOLE, you dumb person! i'm reffering solely to the gaming performance), cell is far better than core 2 duo, and even quad core (again, GOOGLE IT)

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Oh yeah! RIGHT RIGHT! Sony ar such idiots! They have no idea nothing about gaming! AMATEURES! using an ASYMETRICAL PROCESSOR!!! stupid idiots!

YOU SHOULD BE APPOINTED HEAD OF SONY! KING OF SONY ACTUALLY!

sarcasm and irony

your statement is probably the most unfounded and stupid i've ever heard.

i'd rather take that in order/out order processors non sense :))

Quit being an idiot and do some research.

I'm still returning to your "asymetrical processors are not practical for gaming".

That statement is just so...stupid and SOOO wrong i won't even continue denying it. I'd rather let you believe that (altogether with the fact that you outsmart the whol sony team that worked at the ps and got THAT wrong - LOL - ), this way you reamain missinformed and thus dumb

Oh, you're reffering to the fact that it's hard to create games (relatively) AT THE MOMENT?

News flash! every time there's a new technology (or more exactly a new ANYTHING) on the market, there's a learning curve to get used to it (new technology, new game genre, new sex positions or whatever you want). Humans homo sapiens sapiens) have the intelectual capabilty of learning, making logical connections, and adapting to different mediums, technologies and so on. Thus, the devs (which themselvs are homo sapiens sapiens) will very soon be capable of programming games for the ps3's assymetrical processor with no problems. There's the answer to your problem.

Now the question is:

Are you homo sapiens sapiens enough to get what i'm saying and see the logic?

Or are you plain homo habilis?

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Nagidar

Nope, the whole reason I said "Practical" is because to program for an Asymetrical Processor takes alot more time and resources, which can lead to bad games because devs just don't want to spend the cash or deal with how hard it is to program.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Wrong, Asymetrical Processors are not practical for game code.

Teufelhuhn

Nope, the whole reason I said "Practical" is because to program for an Asymetrical Processor takes alot more time and resources, which can lead to bad games because devs just don't want to spend the cash or deal with how hard it is to program.

Practical: mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure.

Programing an Asymetrical Processor is a disadvantage for programing game code because of how hard it is to program for.

I'm still returning to your "asymetrical processors are not practical for gaming".

That statement is just so...stupid and SOOO wrong i won't even continue denying it. I'd rather let you believe that (altogether with the fact that you outsmart the whol sony team that worked at the ps and got THAT wrong - LOL - ), this way you reamain missinformed and thus dumb

benkatz47

And yet, you still haven't done your research, great job.

[QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

So 2 sum up, i think it's best to temporarily close this thread, and re open it once ps3's big hits will be launched, so we can see how much of the ps3's capabilities they will use, and how will it turn out.

Till then, it's rather easy: on paper, overall, undeniably, ps3 is superior (it's not a personal opinion, its simply comparing the 2 papers ps3/360)

Any claims otherwise are unfounded or fanboy-ish.

I'm saying that because it's simply like that: Ps3 has better technology on paper, i'm not saying it's more powerful, nor that it can handle it better, that's why im looking forward at this year. (that to prove i'm not a fanboy, i'm just being realistic)

benkatz47

Oh really?

Ok, let's let aside the cpu and gpu, (and the fact that in the ps3 the cpu and gpu work together in a rather MORE ADVANCED if not revolutionary way than the 360).

Ps3 has blue ray FOR GAMING. What kind of media do 360 games come in?

Ps3 supports kb plus mouse

Ps3 has integrated wifi

Ps3 has 1.3 hdmi (and hdmi from the start, inlike 360), whilst 360 jut put in a 1.2 hdmi

Ps3 has optical audio input

Ps3 can do 1080p, while 360 (elite) just recently added this feature

Ps3 can surf the net

Ps3 accepts other OS (linux)

Ps3 has divx

Now we move on to what the 360 has and the ps3 hasn't:

...

...

...

2 usbs as opposed to 4 ?

no card reader?

...hd dvd (optional)? (how useful is that anyway, it's almost dead)

oh yeah...33% failure rate due to overheating AND...

.....dum dum dum!!! HALO 3!!

No my friend, there is no REASEARCH to be done, there's only a learning curve and some adaptation from the devs, such as in any new technology (dual core, even developing games for the ps2 when it came out was hard, due to its complexity AT THE TIME -and there are tons of articles about it on the net - -google - ).

Yet, what you fail to do, si use and/or exercise your logic.

You either simply can't, or won't , becaouse you know what the answer would be (mostly identical to my explanation), and you're 2 much of a MAN to recognize it.

Either way, "whatever dude".

Note: by continualy ignoring the fact that developers CAN STILL LEARN (being homo sapiens sapiens - :) - ) and adapt themselves to new ideas and concepts (a part of "being human" - adaptation - ), you don't only prove that you're a totally illogical thinking person, but also indirectly "calling" the devs as pretty dumb people, or rather robots which can not be upgraded to learn new things.

Strong logic dude! You're smart

[QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

So 2 sum up, i think it's best to temporarily close this thread, and re open it once ps3's big hits will be launched, so we can see how much of the ps3's capabilities they will use, and how will it turn out.

Till then, it's rather easy: on paper, overall, undeniably, ps3 is superior (it's not a personal opinion, its simply comparing the 2 papers ps3/360)

Any claims otherwise are unfounded or fanboy-ish.

I'm saying that because it's simply like that: Ps3 has better technology on paper, i'm not saying it's more powerful, nor that it can handle it better, that's why im looking forward at this year. (that to prove i'm not a fanboy, i'm just being realistic)

-wii60-

Oh really?

Ok, let's let aside the cpu and gpu, (and the fact that in the ps3 the cpu and gpu work together in a rather MORE ADVANCED if not revolutionary way than the 360).

Ps3 has blue ray FOR GAMING. What kind of media do 360 games come in?

Ps3 supports kb plus mouse

Ps3 has integrated wifi

Ps3 has 1.3 hdmi (and hdmi from the start, inlike 360), whilst 360 jut put in a 1.2 hdmi

Ps3 has optical audio input

Ps3 can do 1080p, while 360 (elite) just recently added this feature

Ps3 can surf the net

Ps3 accepts other OS (linux)

Ps3 has divx

Now we move on to what the 360 has and the ps3 hasn't:

...

...

...

2 usbs as opposed to 4 ?

no card reader?

...hd dvd (optional)? (how useful is that anyway, it's almost dead)

oh yeah...33% failure rate due to overheating AND...

.....dum dum dum!!! HALO 3!!

Fanboys are people who point out overly exagerated facts about the console they prefer, and mostly unreal and false facts, and who openly CURSE other consoles and their users.

Where have i CURSED the 360 and its fans, and could you point out 1 thing that is not true and totally false about my post

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=13

This is an old article, but it's the best comparison I've seen. I think it's a safe bet that, at this point (given that C2D's launched in 2006), PC processors are more powerful. I'd argue that graphics performance, in the end, matters more.

[QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="benkatz47"]

So 2 sum up, i think it's best to temporarily close this thread, and re open it once ps3's big hits will be launched, so we can see how much of the ps3's capabilities they will use, and how will it turn out.

Till then, it's rather easy: on paper, overall, undeniably, ps3 is superior (it's not a personal opinion, its simply comparing the 2 papers ps3/360)

Any claims otherwise are unfounded or fanboy-ish.

I'm saying that because it's simply like that: Ps3 has better technology on paper, i'm not saying it's more powerful, nor that it can handle it better, that's why im looking forward at this year. (that to prove i'm not a fanboy, i'm just being realistic)

benkatz47

Oh really?

Ok, let's let aside the cpu and gpu, (and the fact that in the ps3 the cpu and gpu work together in a rather MORE ADVANCED if not revolutionary way than the 360).

Ps3 has blue ray FOR GAMING. What kind of media do 360 games come in?

Ps3 supports kb plus mouse

Ps3 has integrated wifi

Ps3 has 1.3 hdmi (and hdmi from the start, inlike 360), whilst 360 jut put in a 1.2 hdmi

Ps3 has optical audio input

Ps3 can do 1080p, while 360 (elite) just recently added this feature

Ps3 can surf the net

Ps3 accepts other OS (linux)

Ps3 has divx

Now we move on to what the 360 has and the ps3 hasn't:

...

...

...

2 usbs as opposed to 4 ?

no card reader?

...hd dvd (optional)? (how useful is that anyway, it's almost dead)

oh yeah...33% failure rate due to overheating AND...

.....dum dum dum!!! HALO 3!!

Fanboys are people who point out overly exagerated facts about the console they prefer, and mostly unreal and false facts, and who openly CURSE other consoles and their users.

Where have i CURSED the 360 and its fans, and could you point out 1 thing that is not true and totally false about my post

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=13

This is an old article, but it's the best comparison I've seen. I think it's a safe bet that, at this point (given that C2D's launched in 2006), PC processors are more powerful. I'd argue that graphics performance, in the end, matters more.

NYHoustonman

Nice of you to have searched some info, but with out any offence, honestly man, that orticle isn't old. Technologically-wishe it's ancient, it's form 2005, and now its 08. Also, it's way before any demonstration of the cell processor's capablities. Overall (for a pc) a core 2 duo is better, but the cell's purpose on the ps3 is solely gaming, and at gaming alone, cell is better hands down, as proved by the way it can handle so many simultaneous physics interactions, due to its 7 cells

[QUOTE="NYHoustonman"]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=13

This is an old article, but it's the best comparison I've seen. I think it's a safe bet that, at this point (given that C2D's launched in 2006), PC processors are more powerful. I'd argue that graphics performance, in the end, matters more.

benkatz47

Nice of you to have searched some info, but with out any offence, honestly man, that orticle isn't old. Technologically-wishe it's ancient, it's form 2005, and now its 08. Also, it's way before any demonstration of the cell processor's capablities. Overall (for a pc) a core 2 duo is better, but the cell's purpose on the ps3 is solely gaming, and at gaming alone, cell is better hands down, as proved by the way it can handle so many simultaneous physics interactions, due to its 7 cells

The PS3 at that point was fundamentally the same as it is now. The only thing that has changed is PC processing, which has gotten a ton faster given Intel's rise. The bottom line is that I haven't seen a single reputable source say what you're saying. You guys love to gloss over everything and make these statements like they're absolute truths, but really... The PS3, I'm sorry, isn't everything Sony has made it out to be. It's impressive both from a consumer as well as an engineering standpoint, but the PC has been more powerful as a gaming platform (albeit at a much higher cost) since before the PS3's launch.

Nice of you to say "people" when it's only you mostly, and thus exagerating, making your post rather BS than mine, which is 100% correct. Which of the specifications of the ps3 isn't correct, and which of the 360s flaws are not true?

By not respinding to this question you either prove that you don't have any basis to hold your statement, you're trolling, or you're a secret 360 fanboy in search for a fight. Or all of them at the same time

benkatz47

[QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="NYHoustonman"]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=13

This is an old article, but it's the best comparison I've seen. I think it's a safe bet that, at this point (given that C2D's launched in 2006), PC processors are more powerful. I'd argue that graphics performance, in the end, matters more.

NYHoustonman

Nice of you to have searched some info, but with out any offence, honestly man, that orticle isn't old. Technologically-wishe it's ancient, it's form 2005, and now its 08. Also, it's way before any demonstration of the cell processor's capablities. Overall (for a pc) a core 2 duo is better, but the cell's purpose on the ps3 is solely gaming, and at gaming alone, cell is better hands down, as proved by the way it can handle so many simultaneous physics interactions, due to its 7 cells

The PS3 at that point was fundamentally the same as it is now. The only thing that has changed is PC processing, which has gotten a ton faster given Intel's rise. The bottom line is that I haven't seen a single reputable source say what you're saying. You guys love to gloss over everything and make these statements like they're absolute truths, but really... The PS3, I'm sorry, isn't everything Sony has made it out to be. It's impressive both from a consumer as well as an engineering standpoint, but the PC has been more powerful as a gaming platform (albeit at a much higher cost) since before the PS3's launch.

I'm not trying to pick up a fight with you man, but you're not getting my point. A core 2 duo extreme processor, combined witha 2-4 gigs of ram and a 8800 nivida video card? sure! overall it shtts on the ps3 graphical and gaming-wise.

However, talking solely about the processor, without the aid of anything, ans solely at on of it's main uses in games, phyisics, cell simply can handle more. You must understand that by PC is more powerful (which is 100% right), you take in account the huge ram and more powerful gpu compared to consoles (be it ps3 or xbox 360), but when you take JUST the cpu, and put a core 2 duo and a cell processor to handle some complex phisics in a demo, cell wins. ONLY IN THAT ASPECT!!

[QUOTE="benkatz47"]

Nice of you to say "people" when it's only you mostly, and thus exagerating, making your post rather BS than mine, which is 100% correct. Which of the specifications of the ps3 isn't correct, and which of the 360s flaws are not true?

By not respinding to this question you either prove that you don't have any basis to hold your statement, you're trolling, or you're a secret 360 fanboy in search for a fight. Or all of them at the same time

-wii60-

As i thoght, logics don't help you neither does argumentation. All you can say is "you're a fanboy! you're a fanboy!"...sad or...pathetic?

whatever man, yah, i'm a huge fanboy!! mwahahahahaaaa....

there. buh bye now

[QUOTE="NYHoustonman"][QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="NYHoustonman"]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=13

This is an old article, but it's the best comparison I've seen. I think it's a safe bet that, at this point (given that C2D's launched in 2006), PC processors are more powerful. I'd argue that graphics performance, in the end, matters more.

benkatz47

Nice of you to have searched some info, but with out any offence, honestly man, that orticle isn't old. Technologically-wishe it's ancient, it's form 2005, and now its 08. Also, it's way before any demonstration of the cell processor's capablities. Overall (for a pc) a core 2 duo is better, but the cell's purpose on the ps3 is solely gaming, and at gaming alone, cell is better hands down, as proved by the way it can handle so many simultaneous physics interactions, due to its 7 cells

The PS3 at that point was fundamentally the same as it is now. The only thing that has changed is PC processing, which has gotten a ton faster given Intel's rise. The bottom line is that I haven't seen a single reputable source say what you're saying. You guys love to gloss over everything and make these statements like they're absolute truths, but really... The PS3, I'm sorry, isn't everything Sony has made it out to be. It's impressive both from a consumer as well as an engineering standpoint, but the PC has been more powerful as a gaming platform (albeit at a much higher cost) since before the PS3's launch.

I'm not trying to pick up a fight with you man, but you're not getting my point. A core 2 duo extreme processor, combined witha 2-4 gigs of ram and a 8800 nivida video card? sure! overall it shtts on the ps3 graphical and gaming-wise.

However, talking solely about the processor, without the aid of anything, ans solely at on of it's main uses in games, phyisics, cell simply can handle more. You must understand that by PC is more powerful (which is 100% right), you take in account the huge ram and more powerful gpu compared to consoles (be it ps3 or xbox 360), but when you take JUST the cpu, and put a core 2 duo and a cell processor to handle some complex phisics in a demo, cell wins. ONLY IN THAT ASPECT!!

My laptop is more powerfull then my PS3, PCs have always been the most powerfull and always will

"My laptop is more powerful then my PS3" - besides the fact that we're talking about the cpu, not ram or gpu or hdd...i won't say anything about your comment (yet). I'll let others heat you up.

Why don't you download COD 4 on your laptop, set it on high on 1920x1080 (if your laptop screen can handle it...obviously not) and then play COD 4 on the ps3 on a full hd lcd tv (remember, this thread is about ps3 - and thus, from a gaming point of view solely! , therefore, your post could also be categorized as tottally missing the point of this thread), and see which one runs better...how's that?

[QUOTE="NYHoustonman"][QUOTE="benkatz47"][QUOTE="NYHoustonman"]

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=13

This is an old article, but it's the best comparison I've seen. I think it's a safe bet that, at this point (given that C2D's launched in 2006), PC processors are more powerful. I'd argue that graphics performance, in the end, matters more.

benkatz47

Nice of you to have searched some info, but with out any offence, honestly man, that orticle isn't old. Technologically-wishe it's ancient, it's form 2005, and now its 08. Also, it's way before any demonstration of the cell processor's capablities. Overall (for a pc) a core 2 duo is better, but the cell's purpose on the ps3 is solely gaming, and at gaming alone, cell is better hands down, as proved by the way it can handle so many simultaneous physics interactions, due to its 7 cells

The PS3 at that point was fundamentally the same as it is now. The only thing that has changed is PC processing, which has gotten a ton faster given Intel's rise. The bottom line is that I haven't seen a single reputable source say what you're saying. You guys love to gloss over everything and make these statements like they're absolute truths, but really... The PS3, I'm sorry, isn't everything Sony has made it out to be. It's impressive both from a consumer as well as an engineering standpoint, but the PC has been more powerful as a gaming platform (albeit at a much higher cost) since before the PS3's launch.

I'm not trying to pick up a fight with you man, but you're not getting my point. A core 2 duo extreme processor, combined witha 2-4 gigs of ram and a 8800 nivida video card? sure! overall it shtts on the ps3 graphical and gaming-wise.

However, talking solely about the processor, without the aid of anything, ans solely at on of it's main uses in games, phyisics, cell simply can handle more. You must understand that by PC is more powerful (which is 100% right), you take in account the huge ram and more powerful gpu compared to consoles (be it ps3 or xbox 360), but when you take JUST the cpu, and put a core 2 duo and a cell processor to handle some complex phisics in a demo, cell wins. ONLY IN THAT ASPECT!!

Again, I've heard these arguments a million times, but I've not once seen them substantiated. Fact is, until somebody does a direct comparison with numbers, there won't be a straight answer... My money's on the Core 2 Duo/Quad.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1144148
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/t281238.html

"My laptop is more powerful then my PS3" - besides the fact that we're talking about the cpu, not ram or gpu or hdd...i won't say anything about your comment (yet). I'll let others heat you up.

Why don't you download COD 4 on your laptop, set it on high on 1920x1080 (if your laptop screen can handle it...obviously not) and then play COD 4 on the ps3 on a full hd lcd tv (remember, this thread is about ps3 - and thus, from a gaming point of view solely! , therefore, your post could also be categorized as tottally missing the point of this thread), and see which one runs better...how's that?

benkatz47

"My laptop is more powerful then my PS3" - besides the fact that we're talking about the cpu, not ram or gpu or hdd...i won't say anything about your comment (yet). I'll let others heat you up.

Why don't you download COD 4 on your laptop, set it on high on 1920x1080 (if your laptop screen can handle it...obviously not) and then play COD 4 on the ps3 on a full hd lcd tv (remember, this thread is about ps3 - and thus, from a gaming point of view solely! , therefore, your post could also be categorized as tottally missing the point of this thread), and see which one runs better...how's that?

benkatz47

Just an fyi, Dell makes laptops with 1920x1200 displays (after a quick search)... May not be likely that he has one, but there ya go.

PS3: Better CPU than 360. 360: better GPU than PS3.

Thats pretty much sums it up.

I think the ps3 is stronger personally as the ps3 has caught the 360 in graphics in only one year. Some games even look better on the ps3 imo if you want power then get a gaming pc.ChiChiMonKilla

But the problem is that the original xbox came out a year after the ps2, and it IMMIDIATLY had games that looked noticably better than anything on the ps2 at the time. If the ps3 is so much stronger than the 360 why arent the games noticably better right out of the gate?

I'll tell you why, its because sony promises the world and never delivers. They promised there fans The power of the cell, but in reallity its no more powerful than the 360.

But of course the sony cronies bought up all the hype just like they did with the ps2, and all they got was an overpriced bluray player that is short on games and has nothing more to offer than the cheaper 360 (unless of course you are into HD MOVIES)

Practical: mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure.

Nagidar

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"]I think the ps3 is stronger personally as the ps3 has caught the 360 in graphics in only one year. Some games even look better on the ps3 imo if you want power then get a gaming pc.grimhope

But the problem is that the original xbox came out a year after the ps2, and it IMMIDIATLY had games that looked noticably better than anything on the ps2 at the time. If the ps3 is so much stronger than the 360 why arent the games noticably better right out of the gate?

I'll tell you why, its because sony promises the world and never delivers. They promised there fans The power of the cell, but in reallity its no more powerful than the 360.

But of course the sony cronies bought up all the hype just like they did with the ps2, and all they got was an overpriced bluray player that is short on games and has nothing more to offer than the cheaper 360 (unless of course you are into HD MOVIES)

eaxactly. Last gen the PS2 was made with tech that was weaker than the XBOX tech. the original XBOX was more of a tech trojan horse. However in this gen, the tech in each was made pretty much equal.

[QUOTE="benkatz47"]

"My laptop is more powerful then my PS3" - besides the fact that we're talking about the cpu, not ram or gpu or hdd...i won't say anything about your comment (yet). I'll let others heat you up.

Why don't you download COD 4 on your laptop, set it on high on 1920x1080 (if your laptop screen can handle it...obviously not) and then play COD 4 on the ps3 on a full hd lcd tv (remember, this thread is about ps3 - and thus, from a gaming point of view solely! , therefore, your post could also be categorized as tottally missing the point of this thread), and see which one runs better...how's that?

NYHoustonman

Yes, but a DELL xps (which rocks at gaming) costs .... just tons of money compared to the ps3 :P. Besides, this thred has spun off topic A LOT, and yes it might be my fault 2, but not entirely AT ALL.

wii60: go back to sleep kid, that wasn't even addressed to you.

Just an fyi, Dell makes laptops with 1920x1200 displays (after a quick search)... May not be likely that he has one, but there ya go.

original xbox better than the ps2? maybe as technology, but don't forget what happenned way back to the Neo Geo.

Explain me this: than why is the xbox dead and ps2 still alive and kicking, and why do games on ps3 just keep looking better and better as time goes by?

Ps2 was a better GAMING CONSOLE overall, as a concept and as fun, regardless of the technology.

now THAT is probably the 1st genuine xbox fanboy post on this thread.

original xbox better than the ps2? maybe as technology, but don't forget what happenned way back to the Neo Geo.

Explain me this: than why is the xbox dead and ps2 still alive and kicking, and why do games on ps3 just keep looking better and better as time goes by?

Ps2 was a better GAMING CONSOLE overall, as a concept and as fun, regardless of the technology.

now THAT is probably the 1st genuine xbox fanboy post on this thread.

benkatz47

I think the XBox is dead because Microsoft has phased it out in favor of the X360 - at least that's what I've been led to believe. I recall a lot of complaining on this subject.

Ok, i'll make it simple. I've got a Sony Vaio laptop, 2 gigs of Ram, 2.4 core 2 duo processor. nvidia 8600m gt 512mb (dedicated), 300 gigs hdd. It sucks at gaming compared to the ps3, and yet it hase a core 2 duo processor, and a pretty powerful one (at least for laptops). Thus, ps3 is more powerful. Now you're probably going to say a lot of things that a pc can do and a ps3 can't. I don't care, this thread is about ps3, ps3 is a GAMING console not a PC, thus, AT GAMING, i prefer my ps3. Full stop.benkatz47

nyhustonman:

That's partially my point. This thread used to be about ps3 technology. Ps3 is a gaiming console. Let's get back on track.

Who here considers PS3 as being technologically advanced and who believes 360 as being better (OVERALL!!!)

original xbox better than the ps2? maybe as technology, but don't forget what happenned way back to the Neo Geo.

Explain me this: than why is the xbox dead and ps2 still alive and kicking, and why do games on ps3 just keep looking better and better as time goes by?

Ps2 was a better GAMING CONSOLE overall, as a concept and as fun, regardless of the technology.

now THAT is probably the 1st genuine xbox fanboy post on this thread.

benkatz47

I never said that the xbox lasted longer than the ps2. Nor did i say it was a "Better console"

All i said is that the original xbox was technologically superior to the ps2, and it showed IMMIDIATLY in the games (Multiplatform or otherwise).

If you think that the ps2 had better technology than the xbox then im sorry but you are not only ignorant, but i would say that YOU ARE THE FANBOY HERE.