so can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?

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

so i guess my question has been answered. We can't agree which is more powerful. I think the ps3 is. That's not my opinion either. I really think it is from a technical standpoint lol. But in the real world it doesn't mean much. Like someone says the least powerful console usually wins. Because more people develop for it. It's easier to develop for. Easier to develop = more money etc.. It's cheaper, more people buy it. More people are inclined to develop for it. Microsoft has both the pc and 360 market. It's a domino effect.

"So can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?"

If you can give the specs to prove this. Games just say what devs are doing with the hardware. Specs say what it's capable of.

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.

Walker34

Alright fine, here: Http://e3.g4tv.com/videos/38831/HandsOn_Lost_Planet_2_E3_2009_preview/

So,where is your proof it was running on a Quad, huh?

"So can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?"

If you can give the specs to prove this. Games just say what devs are doing with the hardware. Specs say what it's capable of.

Redonkulous_D

Specs don't tell the whole story either because it has to do with how it's designed and how it can apply to games as well. From a straight computational standpoint the ps3 can do twice the floating point operations per second. But like i said it also has to do with design. It also has to do with who's developing and willing to develop for it like i said above as well. The reality is the ps3 is so different than a tri-core processor it's a big **** in a lot of ways.

so i guess my question has been answered. We can't agree which is more powerful. I think the ps3 is. That's not my opinion either. I really think it is from a technical standpoint lol. But in the real world it doesn't mean much. Like someone says the least powerful console usually wins. Because more people develop for it. It's easier to develop for. Easier to develop = more money etc.. It's cheaper, more people buy it. More people are inclined to develop for it. Microsoft has both the pc and 360 market. It's a domino effect.

Walker34

There is so many factors from what you see it's ridiculous, for custom engine to dev time/effort, microsoft has nothing to prove, sony does.

I really find a hard time believing that, shoot Alan Wake's already looking better graphically than K2 but then again it's had a bit longer to polish up (correct me if I'm wrong).moose_knuckler

I agree alan wake looks awesome. But it is doing tricks however. Look at the lighting. KZ look at the detail in the smoke clouds and what they are doing from a physics perspective and all the little things going on at once, and tell me thats not impressive. there is a lot more going on on screen. I agree the tri core has advantages and can do the big things just as well from a design perspective. It actually has more bandwith and can push higher quality textures to the screen. But look at Uncharted 2 and the amount of detail in the environments. TAke for example that helicopter scene and how everything in the room gets sucked out the window and is all calculating from a physics perspective and everything is being calculated from wind to lighting all at once. You wont see something like that in alan wake. It will more just be a building getting destroyed or a tornado sucking up a couple cars, vs tons of objects and so much going on all at once like that. It really depends on how the game is designed and games have had to be designed differently on each system.

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.

Camer999

I think an actual 360 exclusive will look far better than LP2. LP2 is is multiplatform so I don't believe that the game can be optimized for either console. I guaranty that KZ2 will still look better.

Also graphicaly GODIII does not impress me. KZ2 is still miles ahead of it.

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]I really find a hard time believing that, shoot Alan Wake's already looking better graphically than K2 but then again it's had a bit longer to polish up (correct me if I'm wrong).Walker34

I agree alan wake looks awesome. But it is doing tricks however. Look at the lighting. KZ look at the detail in the smoke clouds and what they are doing from a physics perspective and all the little things going on at once, and tell me thats not impressive. there is a lot more going on on screen. I agree the tri core has advantages and can do the big things just as well from a design perspective. It actually has more bandwith and can push higher quality textures to the screen. But look at Uncharted 2 and the amount of detail in the environments. TAke for example that helicopter scene and how everything in the room gets sucked out the window and is all calculating from a physics perspective. You wont see something like that in alan wake. It will more just be a building getting destroyed or a tornado sucking up a couple cars, vs tons of objects like that. It really depends on how the game is designed and games have had to be designed differently on each system.

Um, again lol!!!! I know you're trying very hard not to be biased, but KZ2 does not have real HDR, it has a type of "fake-HDR", it is good none the less, the textures are also sub par, GEOW 2 is doing just as much on screen, and Farcry two does more than both. Did you see the tech demo of alan wake with the tornado BTW, and really in comparison to: GEOW,LP2, and KZ2, UC2 has nothing going on. Alan wake will also have a 36 by 36 sqaure MILE area to move around in as beautifully rendered as UC2 or better.

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

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.

rusty_armor1

I think an actual 360 exclusive will look far better than LP2. LP2 is is multiplatform so I don't believe that the game can be optimized for either console. I guaranty that KZ2 will still look better.

Also graphicaly GODIII does not impress me. KZ2 is still miles ahead of it.

The fact is Capcom's engine is god-like and produce exclusive like visuals:RE5 anyone?

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="moose_knuckler"]I really find a hard time believing that, shoot Alan Wake's already looking better graphically than K2 but then again it's had a bit longer to polish up (correct me if I'm wrong).Camer999

I agree alan wake looks awesome. But it is doing tricks however. Look at the lighting. KZ look at the detail in the smoke clouds and what they are doing from a physics perspective and all the little things going on at once, and tell me thats not impressive. there is a lot more going on on screen. I agree the tri core has advantages and can do the big things just as well from a design perspective. It actually has more bandwith and can push higher quality textures to the screen. But look at Uncharted 2 and the amount of detail in the environments. TAke for example that helicopter scene and how everything in the room gets sucked out the window and is all calculating from a physics perspective. You wont see something like that in alan wake. It will more just be a building getting destroyed or a tornado sucking up a couple cars, vs tons of objects like that. It really depends on how the game is designed and games have had to be designed differently on each system.

Um, again lol!!!! I know you're trying very hard not to be biased, but KZ2 does not have real HDR, it has a type of "fake-HDR", it is good none the less, the textures are also sub par, GEOW 2 is doing just as much on screen, and Farcry two does more than both. Did you see the tech demo of alan wake with the tornado BTW, and really in comparison to: GEOW,LP2, and KZ2, UC2 has nothing going on. Alan wake will also have a 36 by 36 sqaure MILE area to move around in as beautifully rendered as UC2 or better.

what was lol about that? Did i not say the tri core can actaully do bigger things like huge enviroments because of the general purpose processors, and push higher quality textures in certain regards? The ps3 doesnt have the bandwith to support huge environments. This is why infamous's framerates suffer at times. The ps3 is more powerful when calculating phsycis and when there is a lot more going on on screen.

What's **** hilarious is you are laughing at me when you said what i just did.

The Truth is we dont truly know how powerfull these systems are it seems like everyday i here how this game is pushing the limits of the system then the next day a new game is shown that looks twice as good.

So really it doesnt matter how the technology its how the Devs use it and of course KZ2 and UC2 would have to look good there both made by 1st/2nd party developers who have a higher understanding of the technology

so in the end its how you use the technology the every single last spec detail

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

I agree alan wake looks awesome. But it is doing tricks however. Look at the lighting. KZ look at the detail in the smoke clouds and what they are doing from a physics perspective and all the little things going on at once, and tell me thats not impressive. there is a lot more going on on screen. I agree the tri core has advantages and can do the big things just as well from a design perspective. It actually has more bandwith and can push higher quality textures to the screen. But look at Uncharted 2 and the amount of detail in the environments. TAke for example that helicopter scene and how everything in the room gets sucked out the window and is all calculating from a physics perspective. You wont see something like that in alan wake. It will more just be a building getting destroyed or a tornado sucking up a couple cars, vs tons of objects like that. It really depends on how the game is designed and games have had to be designed differently on each system.

Walker34

Um, again lol!!!! I know you're trying very hard not to be biased, but KZ2 does not have real HDR, it has a type of "fake-HDR", it is good none the less, the textures are also sub par, GEOW 2 is doing just as much on screen, and Farcry two does more than both. Did you see the tech demo of alan wake with the tornado BTW, and really in comparison to: GEOW,LP2, and KZ2, UC2 has nothing going on. Alan wake will also have a 36 by 36 sqaure MILE area to move around in as beautifully rendered as UC2 or better.

what was lol about that? Did i not say the tri core can actaully do bigger things like huge enviroments because of the general purpose processors, and push higher quality textures? The ps3 doesnt have the bandwith to support huge environments. This is why infamous's framerates suffer at times. The ps3 is more powerful when calculating phsycis and when there is a lot more going on on screen.

I can see what you mean but what boggles the mind (I am not being a fanboy in this instance I am just pointing something out). Why does the 360 run Red faction better (a little), I mean that is the most physics intense game out there, so this leads me to believe with the level of physics calculating does not seperate the 360 and PS3 performance wise, what will?

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Camer999"]

Um, again lol!!!! I know you're trying very hard not to be biased, but KZ2 does not have real HDR, it has a type of "fake-HDR", it is good none the less, the textures are also sub par, GEOW 2 is doing just as much on screen, and Farcry two does more than both. Did you see the tech demo of alan wake with the tornado BTW, and really in comparison to: GEOW,LP2, and KZ2, UC2 has nothing going on. Alan wake will also have a 36 by 36 sqaure MILE area to move around in as beautifully rendered as UC2 or better.

Camer999

what was lol about that? Did i not say the tri core can actaully do bigger things like huge enviroments because of the general purpose processors, and push higher quality textures? The ps3 doesnt have the bandwith to support huge environments. This is why infamous's framerates suffer at times. The ps3 is more powerful when calculating phsycis and when there is a lot more going on on screen.

I can see what you mean but what boggles the mind (I am not being a fanboy in this instance I am just pointing something out). Why does the 360 run Red faction better (a little), I mean that is the most physics intense game out there, so this leads me to believe with the level of physics calculating does not seperate the 360 and PS3 performance wise, what will?

Think about this mathematically. A multi core processor when it comes to games is going to be strong when dealing with 2 larger entities. Take a tornado for example sucking up a couple cars. A quad core or tri core processor with a lot of bandwith and a beefed up graphics card is going to excel at that because of the way it's rendering. A processor with one central processor and 7 synergistic processing units which are basically dumbed down risc processors that cant hold a lot of information but can calculate certain things on the fly before they even pass it to the gpu are going to excel when you are dealing with smaller details like being able to incorporate sound processing, more dynamic lighting, physics on a smaller scale which add up. Ultimately i think we are going to see things go the way of cell and multicore processors because as we know the whole is ultimately greater than the sum of its parts. The better smaller things the better bigger things ultimately. Right now the cell and multicore processors are on the other side of the spectrum from one another.

Nope

Yes I agree, the PS3 is More powerful. :)

I'm Just gonna say that PS3 is stronger then the Xbox 360 CPU-wise and the 360 is stronger on the GPU side

The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia.NBSRDan

That's a load of BS.

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"]The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia.dethroned3

That's a load of BS.

[QUOTE="dethroned3"]

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"]The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia.NBSRDan

That's a load of BS.

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

[QUOTE="Redonkulous_D"]

"So can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?"

If you can give the specs to prove this. Games just say what devs are doing with the hardware. Specs say what it's capable of.

Walker34

Specs don't tell the whole story either because it has to do with how it's designed and how it can apply to games as well. From a straight computational standpoint the ps3 can do twice the floating point operations per second. But like i said it also has to do with design. It also has to do with who's developing and willing to develop for it like i said above as well. The reality is the ps3 is so different than a tri-core processor it's a big **** in a lot of ways.

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"][QUOTE="dethroned3"]

That's a load of BS.

dethroned3

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

The PS3 has EXACTLY half of the 360's system RAM.Also, I'm pretty sure the 360's GPU is more powerful than the PS3's. Other than that, I think everything there's true.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Redonkulous_D"]

"So can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?"

If you can give the specs to prove this. Games just say what devs are doing with the hardware. Specs say what it's capable of.

Redonkulous_D

Specs don't tell the whole story either because it has to do with how it's designed and how it can apply to games as well. From a straight computational standpoint the ps3 can do twice the floating point operations per second. But like i said it also has to do with design. It also has to do with who's developing and willing to develop for it like i said above as well. The reality is the ps3 is so different than a tri-core processor it's a big **** in a lot of ways.

Not necessarily though. Because the design and understanding what the designs strengths and weaknesses are when applied to games also have to be taken into account. There are certain things a tricore processor is going to excel at vs a single processor with 7 spe's. Yes it is based on fact. And that's the real fact.

[QUOTE="dethroned3"]

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"]Which part is BS?Redonkulous_D

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

The PS3 has EXACTLY half of the 360's system RAM.Also, I'm pretty sure the 360's GPU is more powerful than the PS3's. Other than that, I think everything there's true.

umm... no.. its not.

btw, he said the ps3 gpu was 10% more powerful than the 360....

you're another guy who dont know what he's talking about.

so annoying.

It's pretty much equal in terms of power. If we are still arguing about this years after they came out there is no true winner.

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"][QUOTE="dethroned3"]

That's a load of BS.

dethroned3

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

[QUOTE="dethroned3"]

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"]Which part is BS?NBSRDan

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

THIS WAS WHAT YOU SAID:

"The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia. "

those are false.

why the hell did you just bring up the 3.2 Ghz thing?

Its obvious the PS3 is more powerfull, if it wasnt we would see games on the 360 that look as good as KZ2 and Uncharted 2.djsifer01

[QUOTE="djsifer01"]Its obvious the PS3 is more powerfull, if it wasnt we would see games on the 360 that look as good as KZ2 and Uncharted 2.pyromaniac223

Sony has about 5 times as many developers as MS and has barely made games that look noticeably better than 360's games, the 360 in which multiplatform titles look better than exclusives shows that developers have yet to really take advantage of the platform. It does depend on how you define powerful, it could go either way.

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Its obvious the PS3 is more powerfull, if it wasnt we would see games on the 360 that look as good as KZ2 and Uncharted 2.djsifer01

System with the best looking multi plats = most powerful in my mind. No way to tell what kz2 would look like on 360.nmaharg

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"][QUOTE="dethroned3"]

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

dethroned3

THIS WAS WHAT YOU SAID:

"The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia. "

those are false.

why the hell did you just bring up the 3.2 Ghz thing?

[QUOTE="nmaharg"]System with the best looking multi plats = most powerful in my mind. No way to tell what kz2 would look like on 360.djsifer01

it has to be judged by exclusives. Just like at a stilted another stilted gen like n64 vs. psone. The n64's exclusives showed its' graphical superiorityGunSmith1_basic

[QUOTE="pyromaniac223"][QUOTE="djsifer01"]Its obvious the PS3 is more powerfull, if it wasnt we would see games on the 360 that look as good as KZ2 and Uncharted 2.djsifer01

[QUOTE="Redonkulous_D"]

[QUOTE="dethroned3"]

EVERYTHING.

I can just get on Wikepedia now and write: 'wii is more powerful than the ps3 and xbox 360 combined'
does that make it true?

and the ps3 has less than half the RAM of either the Wii or xbox 360?

*sigh* did you write those stuff on wikipedia?

dethroned3

The PS3 has EXACTLY half of the 360's system RAM.Also, I'm pretty sure the 360's GPU is more powerful than the PS3's. Other than that, I think everything there's true.

umm... no.. its not.

btw, he said the ps3 gpu was 10% more powerful than the 360....

you're another guy who dont know what he's talking about.

so annoying.

No, I'm right.I just used improper diction. I just checked some spec sheets and they supported what I was saying, justnot how I said it.

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="nmaharg"]System with the best looking multi plats = most powerful in my mind. No way to tell what kz2 would look like on 360.nmaharg

[QUOTE="dethroned3"]

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"]So, you are assuming that all of my facts are false because you deem the source as untrusted. Well then, please tell me, what are the TRUE hardware specifications of the generation 7 home consoles? Is the Playstation 3 processor NOT a 3.2 Ghz Cell Broadband Engine and actually a 4.0 Ghz dual-core IBM PowerPC? Come on, I want numbers!NBSRDan

THIS WAS WHAT YOU SAID:

"The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia. "

those are false.

why the hell did you just bring up the 3.2 Ghz thing?

you still have a lot to learn young one.

if a processor has 3.2 and a different one also has 3.2: that doesnt mean they are equal in terms of power. by your logic, a 3.2 pentium 4 computer is as powerful as .. the cell. scientists have stated that the Cell is about 44 times more powerful than a P4 3.2

i suggest you go on tomshardware.com and do some research.

good luck.