so can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?

ive been saying this for years with silly fanboys saying the 360 could do anything the ps3 can and have it look better. I disagree. I dont think the ps3 can do what we've seen from god of war and uncharted 2. I actually have a 360 and dont even have a ps3 and believe this. I think microsoft won e3 and will be better overall with all the games coming that will be great too, and probably a more complete experience since its on its 3rd or 4th generation of games at this point, but from a pure graphics muscle perspective the ps3 is starting to show its more powerful imo.

no, dice kid

ps3 games that are highly physics based cannot be done on the 360, unless the level of physics get toned down.

developers have stated this a few times.

in terms of starage yes but i think both consoles are evenly matched.

just look at exclusives....u will see which is more powerful...Supa__Mario

MS or 360 fans don't tout about power as much Sony does. (100 fps 360 is 1.5) They are very close in power even closer then Xbox was compared to the Gamecube last gen. Both consoles have their advatages it's just the PS3 cost more.

Why are you guys hyping god of war 3's graphics it looks about the same as ninja gaiden 2 honestly. Uncharted 2 looks really good but splinter cell conviction, alan wake do as well.

ive been saying this for years with silly fanboys saying the 360 could do anything the ps3 can and have it look better. I disagree. I dont think the ps3 can do what we've seen from god of war and uncharted 2. I actually have a 360 and dont even have a ps3 and believe this. I think microsoft won e3 and will be better overall with all the games coming that will be great too, and probably a more complete experience since its on its 3rd or 4th generation of games at this point, but from a pure graphics muscle perspective the ps3 is starting to show its clearly more powerful imo.

Walker34

You don't have to pretend to be all super pro-360 for your statements to have credibility. Just say what you want to say without all the "I have a 360 and I believe this" crap.

Yes, the PS3 is certainly more powerful. It came out later and its specs were hyped to the moon, so it should be more powerful. It if wasn't, that'd be sad. One of the systems is going to be the more powerful one and the PS3 is it.

Uncharted 2 is definitely a game that supports your argument. It's extremely beautiful, breathtaking to be honest. It boggles my mind that you would use God of War as an example however. That game is distinctly average looking.

I agree PS3 is more powerful than 360, BUT power means nothing if the devs aren't using it.

MS or 360 fans don't tout about power as much Sony does. (100 fps 360 is 1.5) They are very close in power even closer then Xbox was compared to the Gamecube last gen. Both consoles have their advatages it's just the PS3 cost more.

Return-Fire

I think ms's hardware is powerful enough where it can cover up these things. That's the difference. The ps3 is more powerful if you look at the amount of detail in the environments. MS also has the support of most developers and the best developers so they know how to cover things up and know tricks by now. IE if you notice alot of the new 360 games focus on AI and lighting and tricks the general purpose cores can accomplish like in splinter cell. They have cool tricks where they project mission objectives on screen which is cool in itself and the lighting making it either light or dark which takes the gamers eyes away from the actual textures.. There also isnt as much going on on screen as far as the number of enemies and what is actually animating and having physics calculated. It's a more simplistic approach which is impressive in it's own right but it's different.

I just find it interesting that splinter cell, mass effect 2, alan wake, and halo odst are more lighting and tactic based vs outright graphics and textures and a ton of stuff going on all at once. Forza 3 is the exception but it's a racing game and that is more just graphics pushing from the graphics card.

Look at Uncharted and how much detail is on the environments its much more detailed. Its also calculating a lot more from a physics perspective. Same as God of War.

just look at exclusives....u will see which is more powerful...Supa__Mario

I'd believe it's slightly more powerful, but it's not this huge runaway that the cows claim it to be.pyromaniac223

This is basically my opinion. PS3 comes out on top, but it's not a huge world of difference. The PS3's power definitely did not meet the hype even if it is more powerful than the 360.

[QUOTE="Supa__Mario"]just look at exclusives....u will see which is more powerful...Locke562

um, no have you seen the LP2 footage on 360 looks better than KZ2 imo, also, it's is damn near to UC2 I think Splinter cel=UCs and Alan wake>UC2, it looks just as good if not better plus it has a 36 by 36 square mile area.

"Different" is a more fitting word I think, not more powerful. More powerful is such a misleading word because it suggests it is superior, there are many aspects of the PS3 that is not superior to the 360. Disk read speed, memory allocation, general purpose CPU performance and GPU shader utilization to name a few.

On the PS3 you can cannibalize CPU performance to provide additional graphical effects with Cells SPE's, but of course that is robbing performance from CPU tasks to expand on the GPU. 360 just has three general purpose cores, but those cores will offer better performance in that area than the PS3's single general purpose core ever can.

They are just different from each other, people like to think the PS3 is superior because of Sony hype and on paper theoretical performance that is unlikely to ever be tapped. Not all of that theoretical performance is real either, just look at the TFLOP claims they made about RSX; which are highly misleading.

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant. If the 360 was a quad core with bluray i wouldnt be saying this, but it isnt. I think thats' pretty much the difference.

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

Walker34

Um, lol, someone posted 360 footage recently and a Quad-core would CRUSH the PS3.

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant. If the 360 was a quad core with bluray i wouldnt be saying this, but it isnt. I think thats' pretty much the difference.

Walker34

:lol: ok

having both consoles, i do think that the PS3 games has the advantage in the visuals department.

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

Walker34

Cell =/= Quad core, they are not comparable.

Different architecture and range of performance, they would kick each others butt at different things.

The quad core is four general purpose cores, the Cell is one general purpose core and multiple RISC processors.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

Camer999

Um, lol, someone posted 360 footage recently and a Quad-core would CRUSH the PS3.

would you like to post this footage that is running on a 360 then? All of the stuff shown was confirmed to be on a quad core pc.

Seriously......who cares ? did the sony fans care last gen that the xbox was more powerful ? the xbox was more powerful than PS2 and it still flopped, i'll take the system with the better games everytime thank you very much lol

Where the PS3 truly shines is in it's exclusives, however you will never have everyone agreeing on which system is more powerful.

Great for PS3 then. One or two games can look slightly better than what 360 can do... all the other mulitplats (with a few exceptions) can look worse.

Yay?

Forza 3 has shown the Xbox 360 hasn't been maxed out like some suggested last year & that the Xbox 360 can still compete visually with the PS3.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

AnnoyedDragon

Cell =/= Quad core, they are not comparable.

Different architecture and range of performance, they would kick each others butt at different things.

The quad core is four general purpose cores, the Cell is one general purpose core and multiple RISC processors.

I agree with that and know that. I was more talking from a generational standpoint. I know they are completely different. But a quad is more comparable from a power standpoint in different ways than a tri core is. The quad core and the cell are more on par with each other from a power perspective. tri-core and dvd are a generation behind.

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 .

Walker34

360 = better at shaders and textures

PS3 = better at some forms of lighting and physics

Also, the console costs 200$ more. I would certainly hope it was more powerful :D

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 .

samuraiguns

something tells me you haven't because I have. So you are saying a quad core can't match the ps3?

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 .

Walker34

something tells me you haven't because I have. So you are saying a quad core can't match the ps3?

@Walker34: More cores doesn't mean more powerful in gaming. A dual core is faster in many cases with games today than a quad core.

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"][QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree a quad core can match the ps3 .

Walker34

something tells me you haven't because I have. So you are saying a quad core can't match the ps3?

In raw data crunching, yes.

If you look at this picture, I see one "mothercore" and 7 - 8 "powercores", so to speak.

look at this picture and I see a true quad-core design

The cell is basically a single-core processor with a 7 - 8 branches of a data pool resources, so to speak.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"] something tells me you have never seen a silicon die/wafer.pyromaniac223

something tells me you haven't because I have. So you are saying a quad core can't match the ps3?

We are talking abotu gaming. Not general purpose computing. Most of what is done in gaming are highly specialized tasks. I think the cell could hold it's own against a quad core in a gaming environment. Yes the quad would ultimately show it's muscle in other areas but I think the cell would be able hold its own. One ppe and 7 risc processors are very capable in a gaming environment. Yes the quad would be able to kill it in certain areas.

@Walker34: More cores doesn't mean more powerful in gaming. A dual core is faster in many cases with games today than a quad core.

Nokanhav

yes you said it yourself.

bu..bu..bu..but teh cell!!!

lol. anyways, yea, the ps3 is stronger.

CPU = PS3

GPU = 360

bu..bu..bu..but teh cell!!!

lol. anyways, yea, the ps3 is stronger.

CPU = PS3

GPU = 360

SilverChimera

I agree but it's not as simple as that. They are completely different architectures and need to be designed for differently. If the ps3 is designed for it can do things the 360 can't. The same can be said vice versa(look at the multiplats and there is usually a downgrade in performance), but in relative terms the ps3 is capable of doing more that the 360 can't imo. It shows in the games that are designed for each system. The main factor is most developers are first developing for a more traditional architecture because it's more cost effective for them. Because why would they develop first on the cell when it's the only processor of its kind. When it's more cost effective to develop for the 360 and pc first because mroe people have them.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

lost planet 2 was running on a high end quad core pc in that footage. That's not 360 footage. I agree a quad core can match the ps3 but the 360 cant.

Walker34

Um, lol, someone posted 360 footage recently and a Quad-core would CRUSH the PS3.

would you like to post this footage that is running on a 360 then? All of the stuff shown was confirmed to be on a quad core pc.

Go to this thread:Http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26903249&tag=topics;title

360 = better at shaders and textures

PS3 = better at some forms of lighting and physics

Also, the console costs 200$ more. I would certainly hope it was more powerful :D

Nokanhav

Its funny that people here always fight about which system has the best graphics when in the end the console with the worst graphics usually wins.

The 360 is much more powerful.XboxGamer1213

Its funny that people here always fight about which system has the best graphics when in the end the console with the worst graphics usually wins.

Furzjodler

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Um, lol, someone posted 360 footage recently and a Quad-core would CRUSH the PS3.

Camer999

would you like to post this footage that is running on a 360 then? All of the stuff shown was confirmed to be on a quad core pc.

Go to this thread:Http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26903249&tag=topics;title

thanks. i just youtubed it actually. it looks great.

that vid was confirmed to be on a high end pc btw..... I honestly don't know. Thats just what they said in an article that the trailer shown was running on a high end pc. But they do have vids from e3 over at gametrailers and you can see its running on the 360 because of the button popups. It still looks really good, but the video quality kind of sucks beause it's a cam.

[QUOTE="Nokanhav"]

360 = better at shaders and textures

PS3 = better at some forms of lighting and physics

Also, the console costs 200$ more. I would certainly hope it was more powerful :D

mD-