[QUOTE="Odrec"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]You're talking as if the 360 GPU is miles ahead of the PS3. The fact is that it is not. Carmack himself said that in overall power the PS3 is in the lead and it will always be. And that stuff about custom engines is an excuse. The 360 can't reach the levels of PS3 exclusives because it lacks the power to do so, plain and simple. Overall the PS3 is the most powerful machine from those 2 and many developers have confirmed it either by saying it publically or by making games that look and play more impressively than anything on the 360. Keep saying to yourself that the 360 is more powerful but sorry, it just isn't. Both systems are more powerful in certains areas but the actual difference isn't as extreme as you seem to think. The actual hardware in the consoles is on a pretty much even level. Its the storage space that differs the most. Don't mix "power" with "storage". They are vastly different.Dude, do you even know how game programming works? RAM is one of THE most important things. The differences between the consoles' CPU doesnt create more RAM. No matter how powerful your CPU is, you will still be limited by the amount of RAM you have. This should be common sense. My judgement isnt clouded because im speaking from experience. As i have said many, many times on here. You would never max out crysis on a quad core cpu, and a mid range GPU, but you can with a dual core, and high end GPU. This is because GPU is the most important thing in GAMING. People who argue that the Cell "can help out in graphics" dont understand what that means. The devs simply mean that jobs can be offloaded............jobs like lighting, post processing, physics, animations, but the Cell will never RENDER any graphics as fast as even the lowest of GPUs. Even if it was programmed to procedurally generate textures, it still would be slower, and it would STILL be limited by RAM. More powerful CPU means almost zip if you are still being choked off by RAM, in which BOTH consoles are. So if it makes you feel better to think that the PS3 is more powerful, then go ahead, but the fact remains is that the 360 doesnt have the games that you percieve to be on par with UC2 is that very few games have custom engines. Maybe its because its so much like a PC that devs just use existing engines, when PS3 is vastly different so standard PC engines dont work well. One could also argue the issue of dev talent, in which im more likely to concede. Limited RAM and the Cell's complexity is the great equilizer in this debate. IF PS3 had more RAM, then it could do more.
Skittles_McGee
I'm not confusing both. In processing power the Cell is a much more powerful processor than the Xenon, the 360 GPU has more RAM than the PS3 one but is not the difference as with the processor. Combining both and stuff like storage capacity the PS3 has more potential as a gaming machine than the 360. Maybe not miles away but certainly to consider it more powerful.
And for those saying I don't understand about computers I have a BSc in Computer Science so yes I know how to program and what the different parts of a computer work for.
Log in to comment