Ps3 GPU Stronger than Xbox 360's GPU?????

The ignorance hurts. This website, though far from prefect is probably the best cpu and gpu comparrison i could find published that people with a less advanced computer education could understand (some people may not even understand this, but anything less is usesless): http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

 On the subject of computer cards, I really hope ATI/AMD steps up as, as consumers we really need the competition. I mean look how Nvidia butchered the *600GT tradition with the 8600GT and the HD2900XT didn't even reach the bar let alone raise it so it's like Nvidia is pushed. 

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response? 

After_Math

that's like using nvida's website to say 8800>2900 :lol:

Well that's not the point is it?

Just compare the numbers. 

550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Simple math.

TriangleHard

it's not that simple, going but clock speeds the gf 7600gt should be the fastest of the 7 series, but its far from it.  there is something call shaders, and more are better and far more important than clock speeds

It has already been confirmed that the GPU inside the 360 is infact superior to the one inside the PS3. However, the cell can be used to enhance graphical performance and quality (although I've yet to see the PS3 take advantage of this capability). Peter_Darkstar

No it never was "confirmed" at all. 360's GPU is certainly much easier to use more efficiently, but it is by no means "superior" except in design. PS3's GPU in peak performance is actually capable of far more Floating point cacluations and overall horse than 360's. But just like with the Cell it all depends on how well the developer utilizes it. PS3's GPU is more powerful, 360's is more efficient. Prettymuch equal aside from developement ease. We end up with 360 games having a better minimum standard and PS3 having worse bad games and really good good games.... but all anyone cares about is good games anyways.

[QUOTE="dudy80"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response?

TriangleHard

It's the same numbers Sony spewed out pre-release and they mean nothing.

and same numbers Microsoft spewed out means something?

Incorrect, they both mean nothing. Specs on paper are never a good judge. Companies inflate their strong points, avoid even mentioning their weak points, and try to paint a picture of "higher triangles per second" or "more gigflops" equaling higher performance. These are all parts of performance, but the picture is much bigger than that. And, like I mentioned, they're inflated theoretical performance, not real world.

Edit: I had to edit my post to account for your sarcasm. Changed "Correct" to "Incorrect". Either way, they both mean nothing and they're garbage figures - from both sides.

Of course companies are going to release numbers highest possible point. Even if GPU can perform such level, that doesn't mean it will be put into use to that limit, because it is physically impossible due to system structure.

However, we are talking about GPU only specifically, and PS3 do have more powerful GPU. Does that mean PS3 has better graphics? I'd say no because Xbox 360 has better structure which has very flexible RAM. However, GPU the part specifically, PS3 has more powerful chip which probably will never be used to it's limit due to structual limitation. In the end, it's pretty much a wash between two systems in terms of performance. Still PS3 has more powerful GPU.

Yes, but it wasen't built with gaming in mind. Thats the major drawback, the cell just dosen't take games well, sonys dumb for not going with a cpu more built twords gaming. Sure the cell is more powerful, but look at how hard its been for developers to make games for. Its a shame really.

Yes I know that, and due to complicated structure, it becomes port unfriendly and more expensive for developers to make games for.

Still, the topic was that which system has more powerful GPU. GPU is specific part and PS3 does have more powerful GPU.

As for overall performance, I'd still say PS3 does have slight advantage but it is pretty much a wash and I'm sure all developers would rather have simple structures to make their lives easier than complicated structure who knows why they did it.  

[QUOTE="Peter_Darkstar"]It has already been confirmed that the GPU inside the 360 is infact superior to the one inside the PS3. However, the cell can be used to enhance graphical performance and quality (although I've yet to see the PS3 take advantage of this capability). Lazy_Boy88

No it never was "confirmed" at all. 360's GPU is certainly much easier to use more efficiently, but it is by no means "superior" except in design. PS3's GPU in peak performance is actually capable of far more Floating point cacluations and overall horse than 360's. But just like with the Cell it all depends on how well the developer utilizes it. PS3's GPU is more powerful, 360's is more efficient. Prettymuch equal aside from developement ease. We end up with 360 games having a better minimum standard and PS3 having worse bad games and really good good games.... but all anyone cares about is good games anyways.

Wrong! The RSX has more GFLOPS, 364, than the Xenos, 240, BUT, theres more to "power" than just that, the Xenos puts out, more of everything else than the RSX does, on top of being more efficient.

Xenos > RSX.

http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=1

I seriously have a headache after reading all of that. Nothing too definitive from it, but I've given up at this point comparing.

My roommate has a 360, and I'm getting a PS3. I'm stoked. 

Well that's not the point is it?

Just compare the numbers.

550 mhz > 500 mhz.

Simple math.

TriangleHard

LOL.

People if you don't know what you are talking about, please don't comment. 

Atari Jaguar

"Do the Math"

ATI is always behind nvidia ever since 5 series screw up. only difference between the rsx and the xenos is rsx can push out textures alot faster but xenos has better iq, plus the 10mb edram is huge ++ for AA for xenos. but then again you have to take into account the cell can render as well. so pretty much its even grounds on graphics, only problem is hard to make games for ps3 but soon that will all change since most devs will start using the edge tool.


8800 series > iq lead by ati. go nvidia!!!.

[QUOTE="After_Math"]

http://www.sonyprotectiongroup.com/?/content/view/77/2/

 

Wow, I didn't bother reading/looking up the dudes links, but whats your guys response? 

imprezawrx500

that's like using nvida's website to say 8800>2900 :lol:

sadly the 8800>2900 part is true ROFL..

good if its true after the extra cash and delays sony have had!

infact it wants to be true!