So the PS3 is more powerful than the 360?

Carmack sums it up best. The CPUs are about the same, the 360 has the more powerful GPU. He also stated the PS3 has more processing power, obviously referring to CPU match up, so if you have a huge bucket of money and you're can develop exclusively for the PS3 and optimize for teh Cell, then the PS3 is slightly more powerful. Maybe.

I remember when Cows were saying something like KZ2 could never be done on 360, then Crytek demonstrated CE3 with deferred lighting and all, and the 360 and PS3 versions look better than KZ2 and it's endless corridors.

Equal is equal.

[QUOTE="patriots7672"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

Well I guess one thing is true...Hatred is more powerful than both of them combined. It makes people blindly spew out BS facts and % claims.

doubleblahzors2

Have you seen the latest issue of Game Informer? It show the 360 having a 54% failure rate, the PS3 a 10% failure rate, and the WII a 8% failure rate. My 360 failed twice.. a failed HDD then RRoD. I E-bayed the replacement because it was freezing every 10-15 mins. I told the kid who bought it and said he could send it in when it fails again. My brother in law has had 5 360s fail of different issues and 5 360 controllers. A guy that works at my local Game Crazy has has 7 fail, but he says he likes it too much to switch to PS3. Which I think is what most people's case is.

Hatred for a company that knowlingly released this hardware out to the public knowing it would fail so they could beat theor competitors and get it out before X-mas. These are facts, like them or not!

Carmack sums it up best. The CPUs are about the same, the 360 has the more powerful GPU. He also stated the PS3 has more processing power, obviously referring to CPU match up, so if you have a huge bucket of money and you're can develop exclusively for the PS3 and optimize for teh Cell, then the PS3 is slightly more powerful. Maybe.

I remember when Cows were saying something like KZ2 could never be done on 360, then Crytek demonstrated CE3 with deferred lighting and all, and the 360 and PS3 versions look better than KZ2 and it's endless corridors.

Equal is equal.

gamecubepad

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"][QUOTE="patriots7672"]

Have you seen the latest issue of Game Informer? It show the 360 having a 54% failure rate, the PS3 a 10% failure rate, and the WII a 8% failure rate. My 360 failed twice.. a failed HDD then RRoD. I E-bayed the replacement because it was freezing every 10-15 mins. I told the kid who bought it and said he could send it in when it fails again. My brother in law has had 5 360s fail of different issues and 5 360 controllers. A guy that works at my local Game Crazy has has 7 fail, but he says he likes it too much to switch to PS3. Which I think is what most people's case is.

Hatred for a company that knowlingly released this hardware out to the public knowing it would fail so they could beat theor competitors and get it out before X-mas. These are facts, like them or not!

ZoomZoom2490

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

Well I guess one thing is true...Hatred is more powerful than both of them combined. It makes people blindly spew out BS facts and % claims.

patriots7672

Have you seen the latest issue of Game Informer? It show the 360 having a 54% failure rate, the PS3 a 10% failure rate, and the WII a 8% failure rate. My 360 failed twice.. a failed HDD then RRoD. I E-bayed the replacement because it was freezing every 10-15 mins. I told the kid who bought it and said he could send it in when it fails again. My brother in law has had 5 360s fail of different issues and 5 360 controllers. A guy that works at my local Game Crazy has has 7 fail, but he says he likes it too much to switch to PS3. Which I think is what most people's case is.

Hatred for a company that knowlingly released this hardware out to the public knowing it would fail so they could beat theor competitors and get it out before X-mas. These are facts, like them or not!

carmacks a known nvidiot fan, he did jump on ati during doom3 development for a bit, still a nvidiot though.doubleblahzors2

???

John Carmack is imo the most talented game developer in the world.

What he says has been echoed by many other talented devs, and for the most part(outside of the alternate reality of SW) universally known.

Cell > Xenon

Xenos > RSX

360=PS3

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"]carmacks a known nvidiot fan, he did jump on ati during doom3 development for a bit, still a nvidiot though.gamecubepad

???

John Carmack is imo the most talented game developer in the world.

What he says has been echoed by many other talented devs, and for the most part(outside of the alternate reality of SW) universally known.

Cell > Xenon

Xenos > RSX

360=PS3

Yes, far more powerful in CPU power and a little more in GPU power.djsifer01

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"]carmacks a known nvidiot fan, he did jump on ati during doom3 development for a bit, still a nvidiot though.doubleblahzors2

???

John Carmack is imo the most talented game developer in the world.

What he says has been echoed by many other talented devs, and for the most part(outside of the alternate reality of SW) universally known.

Cell > Xenon

Xenos > RSX

360=PS3

I don't quite get what you're saying. Why would he need to speak in-depth about something that is common knowledge(irl)? There are many reasons the Xenos is more powerful than the RSX, all of them are easily found on the net and routinely discussed on tech and game sites.

What, do you think the RSX is up to par with the Xenos?

john carmack has never talked about ps3 and xbox360's gpu in depth. lol i heard him rsx has more shader processing power that's false. but that's only thing i heard him say, plus he's a known nvidia fanboy actually. insomniac aka resistance fall of man makers the ceo ted price said xbox360's gpu is slightly more powerful and ps3's cpu is alot more powerful than 360s. i somewhat believe ted more than john carmackdoubleblahzors2

In theory, the Cell is much more powerful than the Xenon, at least in FLOPs. In actual practice the 3 core, 6 thread Xenon is more efficient for running code and is more than capable of powering games on the same level as the Cell does.

Games are almost always GPU bound. Any random PC gamer knows it's better to have a $200 CPU and a $500 GPU than the reverse.

The PS3 is barely more powerful than the 360 if you optimize for the Cell. I'm sure John Carmack would agree, but he's looking at the systems from a multiplat developer point of view, not a biased exlusive developer point of view like Insomiac(aka Sony lap dog).

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"]john carmack has never talked about ps3 and xbox360's gpu in depth. lol i heard him rsx has more shader processing power that's false. but that's only thing i heard him say, plus he's a known nvidia fanboy actually. insomniac aka resistance fall of man makers the ceo ted price said xbox360's gpu is slightly more powerful and ps3's cpu is alot more powerful than 360s. i somewhat believe ted more than john carmackgamecubepad

In theory, the Cell is much more powerful than the Xenon, at least in FLOPs. In actual practice the 3 core, 6 thread Xenon is more efficient for running code and is more than capable of powering games on the same level as the Cell does.

Games are almost always GPU bound. Any random PC gamer knows it's better to have a $200 CPU and a $500 GPU than the reverse.

The PS3 is barely more powerful than the 360 if you optimize for the Cell. I'm sure John Carmack would agree, but he's looking at the systems from a multiplat developer point of view, not a biased exlusive developer point of view like Insomiac(aka Sony lap dog).

Yes, far more powerful in CPU power and a little more in GPU power.djsifer01

This is why you make me cry System Wars :\ subrosian

You act like you can't quote the Bible if you're not God, or as if you can't make assessments of athletes or sports teams because you aren't a pro.

What is confusing and far beyond understanding to you is just obvious to people who know hardware and have experience tweaking settings and benchmarking for optimal performance. Not to mention the pages upon pages of developer testimony, and the games themselves. The proof is in the pudding, stop overthinking the matter.

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"] blah blah i read all this crap e3 2005, the only way to compare consoles power is by multiplatform games. games perform better on xbox360 because it has better hardware. And what i read at e3 2005 showed me xbox360 is better and well what do you know? xbox360 turned out better. lol if people were making games ground up for xbox360 engines and everything skilled dev's high budget they'd make a game ps3 could never outdo graphically.Iamsmee

Really? Kind of moronic thinking. Don't get me wrong, multiplats are a major aspect between which one is better, but not the main one.

System-wise PS3 was created as a real step into the next gen, whether that was a good idea is opinionated. While the 360 was released earlier, it still plays on DVD (while few years ago that was fine, it if starting to catch up to them me thinks), GHZ controllers, of course no wireless (which even the Wii has, too bad Wii doesn't have Ethernet) while the PS3 has a new format, new cell technology (which still has to show its true colours), bluetooth, etc, etc.

PS3 is a much better/powerful system, hence why it cost so much at the start. And in the long run Sony's choice to make it a real next gen system may be better for them as this gen is looking like a LONG one. While Nintendo's motive was never to be in the same race in the first place and hence does not need to worry as much as MS, and even then they have made their money and when they need to can easily upgrade to a new console while still supporting the original Wii.

I think it would be moronic to state that there isn't much difference between 360 and PS3 (in terms of EVERY part of technology), a part from multiplats which are made for a main audience (hence are made better mostly on 360 with a few exception, e.g. FFXIII). 360 having old technology compared with PS3 wasn't and still isn't a bad thing, but saying that there is not much difference in terms of actual stats is stupid. PS3 was built so it could last through the years, while MS purposely skipped on those things (as well as others, *cough* 54% failure) so they could get into the game early (worked for them, but of course far from being successful like Nintendo's strat).

TLDR: PS3 is far more powerful. It was made to be that way, the 360 was not.

multiplatform games are the only factor in proving which console is more powerful. ps2 games ported to xbox looked better on xbox, grand theft auto vice city looked better on xbox and it was developed for ps2. the reason why 360 games ported to ps3 dont look as good because the hardware isnt as good.doubleblahzors2

Well said.

The PS3 is indeed more powerful.

Specs wise PS3 is slightly more powerful. I'm pretty sure it has a different architecture which makes it harder to develop for, but will pay off in the hands of a talented developer. Much like the SEGA Saturn if I'm correct

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"]multiplatform games are the only factor in proving which console is more powerful. ps2 games ported to xbox looked better on xbox, grand theft auto vice city looked better on xbox and it was developed for ps2. the reason why 360 games ported to ps3 dont look as good because the hardware isnt as good.gamecubepad

Well said.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"]multiplatform games are the only factor in proving which console is more powerful. ps2 games ported to xbox looked better on xbox, grand theft auto vice city looked better on xbox and it was developed for ps2. the reason why 360 games ported to ps3 dont look as good because the hardware isnt as good.krunkfu2

Well said.

The PS3 is indeed more powerful.

jakehouston88

David Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.

---

"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores... it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."

---

David Shippy would disagree with your statement.

[QUOTE="krunkfu2"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Well said.

doubleblahzors2

well depends, if FF13 looks better on 360 then you've proved your point since it was first designed for the PS3, otherwise easier coding =!= better cores, maybe 360s core is better, but from what i know the only reason multiplats look bad on PS3 is because it is harder to design for it... anyway, first post is gone since i didnt bother reading the topic post and included whole lot of other crap that had nothing to do with the cores

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"][QUOTE="krunkfu2"] This is wrong thoughIamsmee

well depends, if FF13 looks better on 360 then you've proved your point since it was first designed for the PS3, otherwise easier coding =!= better cores, maybe 360s core is better, but from what i know the only reason multiplats look bad on PS3 is because it is harder to design for it... anyway, first post is gone since i didnt bother reading the topic post and included whole lot of other crap that had nothing to do with the cores

[QUOTE="krunkfu2"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Well said.

doubleblahzors2

[QUOTE="doubleblahzors2"][QUOTE="krunkfu2"] This is wrong thoughkrunkfu2

[QUOTE="jakehouston88"]

The PS3 is indeed more powerful.

ronvalencia

David Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3.

---

"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores... it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."

"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."

He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."

---

David Shippy would disagree with your statement.

Straight from the horses mouth. Thanks for the link. Defininitely one of the most informational posts I've seen in a while.

Thanks for clearing this up. Now I'm unsure if I want to support a system that's harder on developers.brandontwb

Well actually until MS came along development wasn't easy (it still isn't, but hopefully you get my point). The thing is there's still profits to be made by making a ps3 version since they still sell about 1/2 what the 360 title does, and by my guess it cost under $10 million to port a ps3 version (I don't work in finance so I could be a way high on this estimate), and that means you'd only have to sell 1/4 million units in the first 6 months to turn a profit.

Of course w/ smaller studios there's the problem of having enough skilled staff on hand to handle the port, and even the larger studios tend to rely on outsourcing to a contract studio (in this situation outsourcing means a studio in the same country, not like typical outsourcing to India or China). So from a business standpoint porting to the ps3 is still a relatively good option w/ few risks.