Is the PS3 really technologically superior?

mostly everyone here swalloed sony's hype when it came to the power of the ps3..

its got a weak gpu and its cell chip is a donkey

but its games library will be great lending from the ps1 and 2.

daveg1

I swallowed the hype because of how the PS2 ended up panning out when they made the same promises before it launched. The PS2's first games looked like crud compared to games much later on in it's cycle. Did anyone think that the PS2 could have ended up producing God of War's graphics when it launched? No. There was a collective "holy crap the PS2 can do that?" when it came out. A year after the PS2 came out we got MGS2, which at the time looked great. Compared to God of War it looks like crud.

The whole thing about "getting to understand" the hardware is true. We saw it happen with the PS2, and it will happen again with the PS3. Considering Uncharted can be considered the same step for the PS3 as MGS2 was for the PS2, I am really looking forward to what the PS3's God of War game looks like, whatever it may be.

It does a hellavalot more.Cedmln

Both play DVDs. Both can get online. Both play games. Both do photos. Both do music.

That's without the analisys on which does what features better.

So tell me...what represents this myriad of features you so elloquently combine into the word "helluvalot"?

I'll wait.

*goes back to watching Harry Potter on his PS3 via Blu-Ray*

That game is easily the best for consoles graphics right now. Bgrngod

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]It does a hellavalot more.Dreams-Visions

Both play DVDs. Both can get online. Both play games. Both do photos. Both do music.

That's without the analisys on which does what features better.

So tell me...what represents this myriad of features you so elloquently combine into the word "helluvalot"?

I'll wait.

*goes back to watching Harry Potter on his PS3 via Blu-Ray*

It won't burn (RROD) if you live it more than 3 days in a row on...or as in most cases, it won't burn (RROD) suddenly while playing regardless of how much time you use it in a row.

i am pretty disapointed with the PS3. I mean do you remember the PR talk from sony before it came out, i thought forget PC gaming this sony machine is brilliant. oh well a few years later and Crysis and well i am still looking for sony to make a game that can rival what we have on the PC.

Come on, get on with it :)

I have heard Uncharted is great, going to check it out on my friends PS3 this weekend. be interesting to compare it to crysis graphic wise. especially since i ran crysis on high on a x2 4400, 8800gts, 2gb ram speced PC

I see that the multi-plat games look identical on the ps3 and 360, with the 360 having a slight edge(for being in the market longer) and games performing same on both. Why do people say ps3 is superior to the other consoles(technologically).bigevil_rashek

Just because a system is stronger does not mean developers are going to use all its worth. ESPECIALLY multiplats! Killzone 2, MGS 4 seam to push it a little though. I don't think we've seen a game yet that even uses half the cell's power.

Unlike the 360 it won't bog down and run loud either. Its never stressed out.

[QUOTE="daveg1"]

mostly everyone here swalloed sony's hype when it came to the power of the ps3..

its got a weak gpu and its cell chip is a donkey

but its games library will be great lending from the ps1 and 2.

Bgrngod

I swallowed the hype because of how the PS2 ended up panning out when they made the same promises before it launched. The PS2's first games looked like crud compared to games much later on in it's cycle. Did anyone think that the PS2 could have ended up producing God of War's graphics when it launched? No. There was a collective "holy crap the PS2 can do that?" when it came out. A year after the PS2 came out we got MGS2, which at the time looked great. Compared to God of War it looks like crud.

The whole thing about "getting to understand" the hardware is true. We saw it happen with the PS2, and it will happen again with the PS3. Considering Uncharted can be considered the same step for the PS3 as MGS2 was for the PS2, I am really looking forward to what the PS3's God of War game looks like, whatever it may be.

This could be true, but the argument is fundamentally flawed. It's the same thing as, in sports, when analysts bring up all-time records and crap - that's all well and good, and often it's a good prediction, but every situation is different.

The PS3 is a completely different system, that poses completely different (and, I would argue, more difficult) programming challenges. You could argue that Sony didn't lie with its initial promises relating to the PS2, given GoW2, but two things... It took over six years for a game of God of War 2's graphical prowess to be released on the PS2, and Sony is notorious for exaggerating things like that. Based on what I see on this board, they're pretty good at getting people to 'believe.'

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="skektek"][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 Wiisaolin323

No, if they were full CPU cores, they would NEVER EVER be called SPU (special processing unit) !!!

Or do i miss something ? It would be called an 8 core CPU, not a 8 SPU CPU

I know those SPU's do have good functinality, and are good in floating point brute force calculations, but give it game code, and i foubt they can run anything like it, if the main REAL core does not synchronize and guide them properly

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

I'm aware of that. That's why i said "really for something"; because i remember the document that listed what the SPUs were used for in those games (it mentioned Heavenly Sword and other games also), and it was basically for physics and audio calculations. None of those games did make a heavy use of the SPUs like you said.

I said that we shall see what the SPUs can do because the use of them for graphics rendering, for example, is only beginning now with the use of the Playstation Edge tools. Seems like Killzone 2 will be the first to use the tools. The SPUs will calculate AA, lighting and additional polygons.

Uncharted seems to have used the PPU and one SPU heavily (for AI wasn't it? they got great AI for this game), but we are yet to see devs really putting heavily in use all 6 SPUs.

Teufelhuhn

the ownage has been laid.

/thread.

Well, it doesn't sound like a blender for starters. Secondly, it's capable of so much more.SolidSnake35

True. I love how PS3 haters slam the PS3 for being hard to program for, then deny the fact that developers are not taking full advantage of the PS3s hardware. Think about that for a while. If the PS3 is hard to develop for, then of course all the launch games will not take full advantage of it. Even the PS2 had this same issue, which is why the launch PS2 games cannot compare with the late PS2 games.

As i see it, given they have used 30% of cell power in Drake, and a 60% remains, given Drake just looks as good as the next next gen title and generally feels tiny in levels, it is obvious the other 60% can only get you that far, a bit more detail here and there, and a bit bigger maybe levels, that is all

I can't see how that other 60% of the CPU can make PS3 move far ahead,when in actuality the 30% did not offer THAT much in the first place

And all that, given they can do it, that is maximize CPU usage efficiently, there is a reason they did not use 100% of course for now

All in all, cell is jsut NOT what people hype it to be, and Drake is the livign proof

I think Draek also used the CPU for rendering, there was a link but i can't find it right now

As i see it, given they have used 30% of cell power in Drake, and a 60% remains, given Drake just looks as good as the next next gen title and generally feels tiny in levels, it is obvious the other 60% can only get you that far, a bit more detail here and there, and a bit bigger maybe levels, that is all

I can't see how that other 60% of the CPU can make PS3 move far ahead,when in actuality the 30% did not offer THAT much in the first place

And all that, given they can do it, that is maximize CPU usage efficiently, there is a reason they did not use 100% of course for now

All in all, cell is jsut NOT what people hype it to be, and Drake is the livign proof

I think Draek also used the CPU for rendering, there was a link but i can't find it right now

saolin323

Now wait just a darn second. You say that the Cell only used 30% for Drake, and then say that Drake is proof that the Cell is not what people hype it to be? If a game as awesome looking as Drake is only using 30%, then that would just be proof that the Cell is really powerful wouldn't it?

[QUOTE="saolin323"]

As i see it, given they have used 30% of cell power in Drake, and a 60% remains, given Drake just looks as good as the next next gen title and generally feels tiny in levels, it is obvious the other 60% can only get you that far, a bit more detail here and there, and a bit bigger maybe levels, that is all

I can't see how that other 60% of the CPU can make PS3 move far ahead,when in actuality the 30% did not offer THAT much in the first place

And all that, given they can do it, that is maximize CPU usage efficiently, there is a reason they did not use 100% of course for now

All in all, cell is jsut NOT what people hype it to be, and Drake is the livign proof

I think Draek also used the CPU for rendering, there was a link but i can't find it right now

Bgrngod

Now wait just a darn second. You say that the Cell only used 30% for Drake, and then say that Drake is proof that the Cell is not what people hype it to be? If a game as awesome looking as Drake is only using 30%, then that would just be proof that the Cell is really powerful wouldn't it?

Or just that Drake isn't at all CPU-dependent.

[QUOTE="batman4y2k"][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!!

thegoldenpoo

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

ur talking as though lemmings dont do the same, or sheep or hermits. though you get less from sheep and hermits bout this kinda stuff, lemmings and cows are quite equal.

[QUOTE="bigevil_rashek"]I see that the multi-plat games look identical on the ps3 and 360, with the 360 having a slight edge(for being in the market longer) and games performing same on both. Why do people say ps3 is superior to the other consoles(technologically).ZIMdoom

It depends on your point of view. Is a car that can go 700 mph really superior if nobody can drive it that fast and it is illegal to own? Is a Space shuttle technologically superior if it never gets to take off?

In theory the PS3 is vastly technologically superior. But if developers are determined to make games the inefficient way they have been for the last 20-30 years...then the superiority of the PS3 becomes irrelevant for the reasons you have stated. They will never take proper advantage of the hardware and so games won't show what the hardware is capable of.

I think that is pretty much /thread

I suppose there's still some people that say PS3 is technologically superior to stupify others. Graphically there isn't a difference between Xbox360 vs PS3.

What can you expect from immature people?

Right now the games look the same to me as I own both, after watching Gran Turismo in-car videos I think PS3 wins hands down graphically because that game blows Gears of War out of water.

I think PS3 is just slightly more powerful by a hair, the GPU's are basically the same even though people think Xenos is stronger because of some unified shaders, people have to realize how good Nvidia's chips are, on paper ATI's cards always look better but Nvidia's cards are better put together, so a 1800 vs 7800-7900 is a draw.

CPU well cell is just better than xbox processor.

Memory XBOX360 wins hands down.