Playsation 3 "Monster Specs." The actual specs.

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

For the last few years of these Console Wars the PS3 has been branded as better than the Xbox 360 hardware wise. Now I will not refute this fact, for it is true albeit there is a small difference. And by small I mean many games look the same on both consoles. I personally do not like the PS3 for reasons that are not relevant to this topic.

The link above shows the complete Specs of the PS3.

Here are the specs for lazy people, no offense.

PlayStation 3 Specifications and Details

Product name: PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

• PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
• 1 VMX vector unit per core
• 512KB L2 cache
• 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
• 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
• 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
• * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

• 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
• Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
• Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

• 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
• 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

• Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
• VRAM: 22.4GB/s
• RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
• SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

where are the monster specs? i see none

That was a monster 4 years ago now its a low midend PCs specs :p .

where are the monster specs? i see none

Halo__Reach

I was being scacastic.

That was a monster 4 years ago now its a low midend PCs specs :p .

Kashiwaba

Actually even fours ago it was till a lowend pic :)

Consoles don't need to keep up with PC specs, because they don't have to use as much memory to run other programs. It's not like consoles are running Windows (like most PCs).

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

For the last few years of these Console Wars the PS3 has been branded as better than the Xbox 360 hardware wise. Now I will not refute this fact, for it is true albeit there is a small difference. And by small I mean many games look the same on both consoles. I personally do not like the PS3 for reasons that are not relevant to this topic.

The link above shows the complete Specs of the PS3.

Here are the specs for lazy people, no offense.

PlayStation 3 Specifications and Details

Product name: PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

• PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
• 1 VMX vector unit per core
• 512KB L2 cache
• 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
• 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
• 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
• * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

• 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
• Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
• Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

• 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
• 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

• Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
• VRAM: 22.4GB/s
• RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
• SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

As you can see there is 512 megs if Memory. In other words about 200 percent more than the 2 gigs of ram recomonded to play semi-demanding games on High or Highest Settings. Now I am not saying the graphics suck. For they are in fact amazing for a console, IF they use their hardware to the fullest extent, which both consoles forget to do for some reason. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are by Computer Standards, for causal users. I own a Xbox 360 and I do enjoy it,(Exclusives dont suck because they are not on your console) but it s not match to a PC.

Brean24

WOW ultimate fail

Comparing a PS3 to PC standards is stupid, like someone noted earlier, they are completely different platforms. It just makes you sound... Well... Thick... 'oh pc needs at least 2gb ram so there ps3 isnt monster at all lol'

If only there was an ad on with +3gig of rams for my ps3 that would be awesome! cuz the only weak point of the ps3 and 360 are rams

The problem with numbers is... they are meaningless if the developer cannot fully utilize them. Due to either inability, or due to the complexity of the architecture. Like, look at the Wii. On paper its more powerful than the Xbox, but most of the games barely match even the most average Xbox title in terms of graphical fidelity. Many look worse than Gamecube games.

[QUOTE="Brean24"]

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

For the last few years of these Console Wars the PS3 has been branded as better than the Xbox 360 hardware wise. Now I will not refute this fact, for it is true albeit there is a small difference. And by small I mean many games look the same on both consoles. I personally do not like the PS3 for reasons that are not relevant to this topic.

The link above shows the complete Specs of the PS3.

Here are the specs for lazy people, no offense.

PlayStation 3 Specifications and Details

Product name: PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

• PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
• 1 VMX vector unit per core
• 512KB L2 cache
• 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
• 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
• 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
• * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

• 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
• Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
• Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

• 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
• 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

• Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
• VRAM: 22.4GB/s
• RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
• SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

As you can see there is 512 megs if Memory. In other words about 200 percent more than the 2 gigs of ram recomonded to play semi-demanding games on High or Highest Settings. Now I am not saying the graphics suck. For they are in fact amazing for a console, IF they use their hardware to the fullest extent, which both consoles forget to do for some reason. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are by Computer Standards, for causal users. I own a Xbox 360 and I do enjoy it,(Exclusives dont suck because they are not on your console) but it s not match to a PC.

Norule04

WOW ultimate fail

[QUOTE="Brean24"]

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

For the last few years of these Console Wars the PS3 has been branded as better than the Xbox 360 hardware wise. Now I will not refute this fact, for it is true albeit there is a small difference. And by small I mean many games look the same on both consoles. I personally do not like the PS3 for reasons that are not relevant to this topic.

The link above shows the complete Specs of the PS3.

Here are the specs for lazy people, no offense.

PlayStation 3 Specifications and Details

Product name: PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

• PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
• 1 VMX vector unit per core
• 512KB L2 cache
• 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
• 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
• 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
• * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

• 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
• Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
• Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)

Memory:

• 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
• 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

• Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
• VRAM: 22.4GB/s
• RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
• SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

As you can see there is 512 megs if Memory. In other words about 200 percent more than the 2 gigs of ram recomonded to play semi-demanding games on High or Highest Settings. Now I am not saying the graphics suck. For they are in fact amazing for a console, IF they use their hardware to the fullest extent, which both consoles forget to do for some reason. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are by Computer Standards, for causal users. I own a Xbox 360 and I do enjoy it,(Exclusives dont suck because they are not on your console) but it s not match to a PC.

Norule04

WOW ultimate fail

Someone failed computer literacy c1ass in college...



Also, I sincerely bet that the 360 can reach a higher level of its theoretical performance than the PS3 can...even though its theoretically more powerful than the 360.

The problem with numbers is... they are meaningless if the developer cannot fully utilize them. Due to either inability, or due to the complexity of the architecture. Like, look at the Wii. On paper its more powerful than the Xbox, but most of the games barely match even the most average Xbox title in terms of graphical fidelity. Many look worse than Gamecube games.

foxhound_fox

Consoles don't need to keep up with PC specs, because they don't have to use as much memory to run other programs. It's not like consoles are running Windows (like most PCs).

JonJonJohnnyJon

Because? 2gigs is in fact 200 percent more powerfull than 512 megs. Did you bother to read the actual topic? The reason why I am comparing a PS3 to a PC because many people think the PS3 is a 10,000 dollar supercomputer. And yes PS3 isnt monster at all, and yes lol. Please read the entire thread.Brean24

You mean Memory is everything? what about FLOP power?

[QUOTE="Brean24"]Because? 2gigs is in fact 200 percent more powerfull than 512 megs. Did you bother to read the actual topic? The reason why I am comparing a PS3 to a PC because many people think the PS3 is a 10,000 dollar supercomputer. And yes PS3 isnt monster at all, and yes lol. Please read the entire thread.ShadowriverUB

You mean Memory is everything? what about FLOP power?

BTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster

And don't say that Wikipedia is source of false info, theres "References" for a reason

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]

[QUOTE="Brean24"]Because? 2gigs is in fact 200 percent more powerfull than 512 megs. Did you bother to read the actual topic? The reason why I am comparing a PS3 to a PC because many people think the PS3 is a 10,000 dollar supercomputer. And yes PS3 isnt monster at all, and yes lol. Please read the entire thread.Brownesque

You mean Memory is everything? what about FLOP power?

BTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_cluster

And don't say that Wikipedia is source of false info, theres "References" for a reason

ShadowriverUB

Actually you could with the right stick of ram. Pcs can double the entire specs including Flop Power Brean24

Still it's a gameing console, a quite too powerful for a gameing console.

Wikipedia is a source of false info when there is only 20 links. And what does that have to do with anything. I posted the actual specs. They are not that great.Brean24

It proofs that some math people interested in PS3 processing power even if theres more powerful ones. Note that this is STILL, a gameing console not made for same purpose as PC.

I can't tell which of you are serious and which are taking the piss. Time to have the sarcasm detector tuned up.

where are the monster specs? i see none

Halo__Reach

the price drop will not save the xbox360

That was a monster 4 years ago now its a low midend PCs specs :p .

Kashiwaba

not low. i have a lowend pc and it doesnt play anywhere near the ps3's power. id say mid-high mid (maybe a 6-7 on a scale of 10)

Try doing yourself a real favor and going through the joy of upgrading your API every time Microsoft releases a new version of Windows. Let's see, in '06 everyone was using DirectX9 via Windows XP. In '07 Microsoft released Windows Vista with the much-hyped DirectX10 version API. In '09 Microsoft will release Windows 7 complete with DirectX10 version API. Mind you, DirectX10 videocard were released in '07 along with the release of Vista and that new videocards are being released for the release of Windows 7 with DX11 functionality. BTW, existing versions of Windows cannot have their APIs upgraded and you cannot upgrade API support for existing videocards. This means that if you were to fall into this ridiculous scam, you would be buying 2 videocards and two operating systems in the course of two years for something that would result in probably no net performance gain or a performance loss for a marginal increase in graphical fidelity. Granted, most of us are not on planet Zarbon 9 where the morons dwell and thus we do not buy operating systems and videocards just for marginal increases in performance, the point being regardless that if you are not a smart PC consumer you'll end up with a slim wallet. And regardless us XP users are left without the new API and its feature set along with software support that's likely to scale back in the future (although not likely to happen for a while). And obviously 1.5 Gigabytes of RAM is more than 512MB-64MB, I was just saying that it isn't as catastrophic or as deterministic as you were letting on in the OP.Brownesque

dx11 is backwards compatable with dx10 hardware and is in vista.

not to mention games still support direct x 9 and in some cases 8 or even 7.

dx11 is backwards compatable with dx10 hardware and is in vista.

not to mention games still support direct x 9 and in some cases 8 or even 7.

washd123

DirectX11 can run 100% on DirectX10 cards?

As far as the DX11 on Vista, I did not know that.

[QUOTE="washd123"]

dx11 is backwards compatable with dx10 hardware and is in vista.

not to mention games still support direct x 9 and in some cases 8 or even 7.

Brownesque

DirectX11 can run 100% on DirectX10 cards?

As far as the DX11 on Vista, I did not know that.

100% no, but its still compatable unlike dx9 and dx10 which was mostly due to hardware reqs of the API name. like dx10 support it dx10.1 cards support more but you need a dx11 card to fully support dx11

and yeah vista supports dx11. vista and 7 arent that different at the kernel

dx11 is backwards compatable with dx10 hardware and is in vista.

not to mention games still support direct x 9 and in some cases 8 or even 7.washd123

You forgetting that DX is only a lib and theres no such thing like DX hardware.

DX supports features of GPU, not GPU supports DX. It's "backwards compatable with dx10 (and older) hardware" because it supports features of old GPUs that also part of new ones.

What kind of thread is this exactly?

A. Misinformed fanboy banter

B. A fakeboy claiming unbiased because he/she owns x consoles.

C. Poor attempt at an intellectual argument

D. All of the above

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]

[QUOTE="washd123"]

dx11 is backwards compatable with dx10 hardware and is in vista.

not to mention games still support direct x 9 and in some cases 8 or even 7.

washd123

DirectX11 can run 100% on DirectX10 cards?

As far as the DX11 on Vista, I did not know that.

100% no, but its still compatable unlike dx9 and dx10 which was mostly due to hardware reqs of the API name. like dx10 support it dx10.1 cards support more but you need a dx11 card to fully support dx11

and yeah vista supports dx11. vista and 7 arent that different at the kernel

What kind of thread is this exactly?

A. Misinformed fanboy banter

B. A fakeboy claiming unbiased because he/she owns x consoles.

C. Poor attempt at an intellectual argument

D. All of the above

Vadamee

Which is why the PS3 is in third place? Anyway that is off topic, flame elsewhere and atleast get your facts straight. You are forgetting that Halo is a very popular franchise, so Halo games are guaranteed to be muti platnum. Brean24

this isn't 2006. quit living in the past!!!!

Which is why the PS3 is in third place? Anyway that is off topic, flame elsewhere and atleast get your facts straight. You are forgetting that Halo is a very popular franchise, so Halo games are guaranteed to be muti platnum. Brean24

also because it was originally much cheaper than the ps3. i dont understand why you are trying to relate power to sales. I'll enjoy my original 1st party games while you keep getting the same game over and over. How bout that?

Right Halo is the only game on the X360. Ok whatever floats your boat.Brean24

it is what got it popular, as i said before. if you know how to read you would have known that.

Rhyma I am actually a PC fanboy if you havent noticed. I am also evil and like to kill people with my Xbox 360, I mean why would you plae the 210 exclusives for it? That would be stupid I mean the specs I losted was just plain bullsh*t. The ps3 is super powerful and has 1000 exclusives with amazing best selling games that have sold over 5 million copies like Kill Zone 2 and MGS 4, and of course Uncharted. Who in their right mind would think that the Xbox 360 has good games? I mean its not like microsoft and its devlopers have made any Decent games. Ass Effect sucks. And who in the world would play Gears of War 2? The 5 million who bought it just let it sit and collect dust. And the first party games? LOL. Who cares about halo except for the people who bought(7 million is a low number) it. I agree with you Ryhma. I cant believe I own a X360. I mean who cares about all the terrible features like Facebook, Netflex, Marketplace, and the countless other dumb features. The ps3 is superior in every way. With games that have sold over 10 million like Kill Zone 2, MGS4, Uncharted, and every other PS3 game. PS3 has sold twice as much as the Wii and Xbox 360 combined and with the new price point, it will sell another 50 million in a matter of weeks. Now I see the error of my ways. Thank you PS3Brean24

i sense you're upset because people kept praising how powerful the ps3 is/was?

this isn't 2006 so stop living in the past. right, the pc is more powerful, big deal.

the ps3, 360 and pc are all good. can you accept that?

Dude what are you talking about I am serious.Brean24

read my post again this time, and reflect on what i said.
then give me a better reply if you could.

i sense you're upset because people kept praising how powerful the ps3 is/was?

this isn't 2006 so stop living in the past. right, the pc is more powerful, big deal.

the ps3, 360 and pc are all good. can you accept that?

If only there was an ad on with +3gig of rams for my ps3 that would be awesome! cuz the only weak point of the ps3 and 360 are rams

Syferonik

Those may be real specs, but they are still theoretical.