The 360 cpu is weak

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

Billyhyw

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

Billyhyw

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

 Thats because the code isn't "sloppy". Devs are forced to make the gaming code perfect.  Why do you think in-order processors are so much cheaper to make.

Yes but in terms of raw power the 360 cpu cost about 250 bucks to manufacture when it was launched.  That was in house production as well so If AMD or Intell sold that chip to the maket it would be about a 400 dollar chip as they want to make profit off every peace they sell. 

An inorder procssor at 250$ ?  Now the tc is trying to tell me a processor from 2002 is more powerful?  Why wouldnt Microsoft just slap that in the 360 for about 90 bucks.  O wait I know why because it isnt as powerful as whats in the 360.  The 360 inorder procssor has a good amount of power for gaiming purposes thats why they went with it. 

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

imprezawrx500

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

CPU functions are advanced phsysics and AI. Neither of wich any of the games you listed posess.  Both those games are GPU and RAM intensive game.  

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Billyhyw

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

imprezawrx500

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

 Thats because the code isn't "sloppy". Devs are forced to make the gaming code perfect.  Why do you think in-order processors are so much cheaper to make.

Yes but in terms of raw power the 360 cpu cost about 250 bucks to manufacture when it was launched.  That was in house production as well so If AMD or Intell sold that chip to the maket it would be about a 400 dollar chip as they want to make profit off every peace they sell. 

An inorder procssor at 250$ ?  Now the tc is trying to tell me a processor from 2002 is more powerful?  Why wouldnt Microsoft just slap that in the 360 for about 90 bucks.  O wait I know why because it isnt as powerful as whats in the 360.  The 360 inorder procssor has a good amount of power for gaiming purposes thats why they went with it. 

Only one that said that was John Carmack because he hates multithreading its a pain in the ass.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?imprezawrx500

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Nagidar

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

Billyhyw

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

 Thats because the code isn't "sloppy". Devs are forced to make the gaming code perfect.  Why do you think in-order processors are so much cheaper to make.

Yes but in terms of raw power the 360 cpu cost about 250 bucks to manufacture when it was launched.  That was in house production as well so If AMD or Intell sold that chip to the maket it would be about a 400 dollar chip as they want to make profit off every peace they sell. 

An inorder procssor at 250$ ?  Now the tc is trying to tell me a processor from 2002 is more powerful?  Why wouldnt Microsoft just slap that in the 360 for about 90 bucks.  O wait I know why because it isnt as powerful as whats in the 360.  The 360 inorder procssor has a good amount of power for gaiming purposes thats why they went with it. 

Only one that said that was John Carmack because he hates multithreading its a pain in the ass.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?imprezawrx500

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

imprezawrx500

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

 Thats because the code isn't "sloppy". Devs are forced to make the gaming code perfect.  Why do you think in-order processors are so much cheaper to make.

Yes but in terms of raw power the 360 cpu cost about 250 bucks to manufacture when it was launched.  That was in house production as well so If AMD or Intell sold that chip to the maket it would be about a 400 dollar chip as they want to make profit off every peace they sell. 

An inorder procssor at 250$ ?  Now the tc is trying to tell me a processor from 2002 is more powerful?  Why wouldnt Microsoft just slap that in the 360 for about 90 bucks.  O wait I know why because it isnt as powerful as whats in the 360.  The 360 inorder procssor has a good amount of power for gaiming purposes thats why they went with it. 

Only one that said that was John Carmack because he hates multithreading its a pain in the ass.

G.R.A.W needed more then 1 core.  More cores are to handle better physics and better Ai( physics especially)  Which you will continue to see.  Consoles are built to last for 4 years hence the reason why nobody put a single core cpu in there consoles. Except for the Wii and we all know what a powerhouse that is.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Billyhyw

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Billyhyw

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

 Only ONE of those links was to the Xbox forum and that was the one about the Xenos, the others were from, IBM, Beyon3d and Techreport.

 Quick to shoot stuff down, but not to actually look at the links?  Hell, post some links of your own if you can, I'd be more than happy to read them.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

Billyhyw

Not for gaming it doesnt .  The 360 tri core proessor is about equielvent to a top of the line duel core for the process of gaming.  And the lack of out of order code only makes it more difficult and cheaper not less powerful.

That means more dev time thats all.  It doesnt mean the processor is capable of doing anything less for gaming.  There is no procssor in 2002 that would hold a candle to either the PS3 or 360 in terms of gaming purposes.

 Actually, thats wrong, the only reason the Cell and Xenon is good for gaming is because the force devs to make perfect game code, because of them being in-order processors. Works out quite nicely actually, devs can't afford to be lazy.

No it allows for better optimization and cheaper hardware cost. There is nothing the 360 cpu or the PS3 cpu cant do that a standard desktop pc processor cant do in terms of gaming.  You could not run many of the games the 360 or PS3 is doing with a procssor from 2002 which is what he is claiming.

 Thats because the code isn't "sloppy". Devs are forced to make the gaming code perfect.  Why do you think in-order processors are so much cheaper to make.

Yes but in terms of raw power the 360 cpu cost about 250 bucks to manufacture when it was launched.  That was in house production as well so If AMD or Intell sold that chip to the maket it would be about a 400 dollar chip as they want to make profit off every peace they sell. 

An inorder procssor at 250$ ?  Now the tc is trying to tell me a processor from 2002 is more powerful?  Why wouldnt Microsoft just slap that in the 360 for about 90 bucks.  O wait I know why because it isnt as powerful as whats in the 360.  The 360 inorder procssor has a good amount of power for gaiming purposes thats why they went with it. 

Only one that said that was John Carmack because he hates multithreading its a pain in the ass.

G.R.A.W needed more then 1 core.  More cores are to handle better physics and better Ai( phyiscis especially)  Which you will continue to see.  Consoles are built to last for 4 years hence the reason why nobody put a single core cpu in there consoles.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Citizen_Zero

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?imprezawrx500

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Nagidar

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

 Only ONE of those links was to the Xbox forum and that was the one about the Xenos, the others were from, IBM, Beyon3d and Techreport.

 Quick to shoot stuff down, but not to actually look at the links?  Hell, post some links of your own if you can, I'd be more than happy to read them.

And most of the links dont even prove hsi case that it is more powerful then the PS3 they simply talk about the ATI GPU and how good it is( and it is good) but most dont evne direcltly compare the two.  He is simply interpreting the data for himself.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Billyhyw

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

 Only ONE of those links was to the Xbox forum and that was the one about the Xenos, the others were from, IBM, Beyon3d and Techreport.

 Quick to shoot stuff down, but not to actually look at the links?  Hell, post some links of your own if you can, I'd be more than happy to read them.

And most of the links dont even prove hsi case that it is more powerful then the PS3 they simply talk about the ATI GPU and how good it is( and it is good) but most dont evne direcltly compare the two.  He is simply interpreting the data for himself.

 What he did was break down the known specs into real world numbers, if you look at what he did, you can sit there and do the math yourself and it all makes sense and comes together.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Marka1700

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

Gamespot will also confirm that the 360 version looks better as the pc version didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards and the 360 version did.  And I have a hardtime believing you since gamespot mentiones in review they game ran like crap unless you had a good Duel core proccsor or physics card.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Nagidar

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

 Only ONE of those links was to the Xbox forum and that was the one about the Xenos, the others were from, IBM, Beyon3d and Techreport.

 Quick to shoot stuff down, but not to actually look at the links?  Hell, post some links of your own if you can, I'd be more than happy to read them.

And most of the links dont even prove hsi case that it is more powerful then the PS3 they simply talk about the ATI GPU and how good it is( and it is good) but most dont evne direcltly compare the two.  He is simply interpreting the data for himself.

 What he did was break down the known specs into real world numbers, if you look at what he did, you can sit there and do the math yourself and it all makes sense and comes together.

Major Nelson did the same thing and they almost said the exaxt same stuff its almsot as if thats where he got alot of his info.  Unless you are a game dev those numbers mean nothing .  Why doesnt he not once tell you what games hes made? 

[QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?imprezawrx500

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Billyhyw

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

 Only ONE of those links was to the Xbox forum and that was the one about the Xenos, the others were from, IBM, Beyon3d and Techreport.

 Quick to shoot stuff down, but not to actually look at the links?  Hell, post some links of your own if you can, I'd be more than happy to read them.

And most of the links dont even prove hsi case that it is more powerful then the PS3 they simply talk about the ATI GPU and how good it is( and it is good) but most dont evne direcltly compare the two.  He is simply interpreting the data for himself.

 What he did was break down the known specs into real world numbers, if you look at what he did, you can sit there and do the math yourself and it all makes sense and comes together.

Major Nelson did the same thing and they almost said the exaxt same stuff its almsot as if thats where he got alot of his info.  Unless you are a game dev those numbers mean nothing .  Why doesnt he not once tell you what games hes made? 

 Does it really matter what dev team he works for? If hes right about the specs, who cares.  He wasn't even talking about how to make a game, he was simply breaking down the specs.

[QUOTE="Marka1700"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Billyhyw

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

Gamespot will also confirm that the 360 version looks better as the pc version didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards and the 360 version did.  And I have a hardtime believing you since gamespot mentiones in review they game ran like crap unless you had a good Duel core proccsor or physics card.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31559

Here I found some info that variifed what i Was talking about .  Nano the writher of this article is a dev for NT who is currently making Heanvley sword.  He addresses a few key issues of people criticizing the PS3 GPU. One is the 128meg bus.  Which he actually points out is it has 2 memory busses(one to Xdram and one to GDDR3) another key reason in which the PS3 has an advtnage. 

Check this out I dont know if I can find the whole article though hes wrote more.

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp. That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful. The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

imprezawrx500

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Marka1700"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?imprezawrx500

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

Gamespot will also confirm that the 360 version looks better as the pc version didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards and the 360 version did.  And I have a hardtime believing you since gamespot mentiones in review they game ran like crap unless you had a good Duel core proccsor or physics card.

Um how does the Sp being better have to do with graphics.  He said it "MIGHT BE" the most impressive.  Yet when all the Gamespot editors got togehter this game didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards.  But the 360 version did proof right there the 360 version looks better and it does.

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=11603

There is another review that backs that up.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp. That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful. The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

-Reggaeton-

Most framerates on 360 games are just fine.  I enjoy DOA4 at 60fps.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31559

Here I found some info that variifed what i Was talking about . Nano the writher of this article is a dev for NT who is currently making Heanvley sword. He addresses a few key issues of people criticizing the PS3 GPU. One is the 128meg bus. Which he actually points out is it has 2 memory busses(one to Xdram and one to GDDR3) another key reason in which the PS3 has an advtnage.

Check this out I dont know if I can find the whole article though hes wrote more.

Billyhyw

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31559

Here I found some info that variifed what i Was talking about .  Nano the writher of this article is a dev for NT who is currently making Heanvley sword.  He addresses a few key issues of people criticizing the PS3 GPU. One is the 128meg bus.  Which he actually points out is it has 2 memory busses(one to Xdram and one to GDDR3) another key reason in which the PS3 has an advtnage. 

Check this out I dont know if I can find the whole article though hes wrote more.

Billyhyw

 Ok, no offense, but you linked to a site, (Beyond3d, good site for the most part) than they link to another site, thats called PS3insider and thats suppose to tell me what?   BTW, they were talking about NAO32, which is the "fake" HDR the PS3 uses.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Marka1700"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Billyhyw

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

Gamespot will also confirm that the 360 version looks better as the pc version didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards and the 360 version did.  And I have a hardtime believing you since gamespot mentiones in review they game ran like crap unless you had a good Duel core proccsor or physics card.

Um how does the Sp being better have to do with graphics.  He said it "MIGHT BE" the most impressive.  Yet when all the Gamespot editors got togehter this game didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards.  But the 360 version did proof right there the 360 version looks better and it does.

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=11603

There is another review that backs that up.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

Lmao anyone who thinks PDZ0 looks better then REFOM has never played REFOM. I didnt know PDZ0 had over 20 enemies on screen at a time. I didnt know PDZ0 had almost fully destructable enviornments. I didnt know when you killed someone the body never disapered. Give me a dam break REFOM smokes any 360 launch title from a visual perspective.

Nagidar

The only area people could even argue that PDZ0 looks better then REFOM is texture quality.

REFOM has better char models, more going on screen at a time, better particle effects, better lighting and larger enviornments.

Um yea thats called texture detail.  All bumps and ground work is a form of textureing.  PDZ0 uses tons of bumpmapping and paralaxmapping as many  Rare games do. (Rare makes great looking games) .  Regardless i have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.  If you want to see a game that matches the ground detail or should I say far exceeds it go look up the new pics Lair and you will have an idea of what the PS3 will be doing soon.

Seriously read my previous post or dont waste my time. Thousands of low poly ocrs that all look the same isnt as impressive as what REOM is doing at the smae time.   And no we dont know the 360 is texture king especially since the PS3 verision of Oblivion( one of the best looking 360 games) has better textures on the PS3.   

Then why did you clearly say * I have yet to see a game on the 360 match the onscreen action of REFOM and that is a PS3 launch titles.* when Kameo has at leat 1,000x as many AI on screen as R:FOM regurdless of what they look like it is WAY more action.  Also WTF do you expect Oblivion to look like with a year of extra dev time @_@, how do you think R:FOM would look on the X360 with a year of extra dev time?

AI ?  What AI?  The orcs just aimlessly run around there is nothing special about what they are doing on the screen and they all look exaclty the same.  It is not as impressive as the bulding structuctures falling down 20 + enemies on screen at a time and Smoke and expolsions going off all over the place.

And extra dev time?  Oblivion was being worked on the 360 a year before the PS3 beta kits were even finshed.  In other words no the PS3 didnt get any extra dev time.  It just came out later when it was being finshed on the 360 they were just getting started with it on the PS3 they didnt start working on them at the same time.

 All the stuff for the PS3 version of Oblivion was already in place, all Bethesda had to do was tweak it.

You still have to build the game.  Im not saying Oblvion looks better on the PS3 due to raw power but for the peopel that give me this crap about 360 being able to do more textures the PS3 is capable of the exact same and thats a fact thats my only point here.

 Actually, the 360 is capable of rendering more detailed textures, the Xenos is capable of doing effetcs the RSX is not.  Doesn't mean the PS3 will not have good looking games, but I highly doubt it will surpass what the 360 is capable of.

Um anything the 360 can do the PS3 can do easily as good or better. The only thing Xenos can do is some DX10 effects and that isnot a problem as the RSX and Cell can emulate those just as good if not better using Open Gl. And it wont surpass the 360?  Lair already looks better then anything on the 360.

I have read that and I have also read some comments from the NT dev that shoots that down in every conceviable way.  Its hard for me to take anything he says as valid fact when he fails to list what games hes developed and what company he works for.  Also much of his information is taken from a Major Nelson article from 2005( A Microsoft employee).

 Wow, the guy even posts his sources, WITH LINKS, on page 10.

Yep to team xbox and random forum babble that has ben regurgitaed for the last year.  Nano a Heavleny sword dev went on a big Rave why he feels the PS3 GPU is more powerful.  And he actually list what company he works for.

His post were at www.beyond3d.com

 Only ONE of those links was to the Xbox forum and that was the one about the Xenos, the others were from, IBM, Beyon3d and Techreport.

 Quick to shoot stuff down, but not to actually look at the links?  Hell, post some links of your own if you can, I'd be more than happy to read them.

And most of the links dont even prove hsi case that it is more powerful then the PS3 they simply talk about the ATI GPU and how good it is( and it is good) but most dont evne direcltly compare the two.  He is simply interpreting the data for himself.

 What he did was break down the known specs into real world numbers, if you look at what he did, you can sit there and do the math yourself and it all makes sense and comes together.

Major Nelson did the same thing and they almost said the exaxt same stuff its almsot as if thats where he got alot of his info.  Unless you are a game dev those numbers mean nothing .  Why doesnt he not once tell you what games hes made? 

 Does it really matter what dev team he works for? If hes right about the specs, who cares.  He wasn't even talking about how to make a game, he was simply breaking down the specs.

Um yes it does because devs know specs better then you and me or any random person on a forum.  My point is he is a random person on a forum .  Hence the reason why he cant list his credentials.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"]

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp. That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful. The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

-Reggaeton-

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Marka1700"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?imprezawrx500

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

Gamespot will also confirm that the 360 version looks better as the pc version didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards and the 360 version did.  And I have a hardtime believing you since gamespot mentiones in review they game ran like crap unless you had a good Duel core proccsor or physics card.

Um how does the Sp being better have to do with graphics.  He said it "MIGHT BE" the most impressive.  Yet when all the Gamespot editors got togehter this game didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards.  But the 360 version did proof right there the 360 version looks better and it does.

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=11603

There is another review that backs that up.

Um not really. More detailed can mean more corridors, more balconies more windows and on the pc version that is what it means as each building has more places for enemies.  Visually it doenst look better as my link and nominations prove.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31559

Here I found some info that variifed what i Was talking about .  Nano the writher of this article is a dev for NT who is currently making Heanvley sword.  He addresses a few key issues of people criticizing the PS3 GPU. One is the 128meg bus.  Which he actually points out is it has 2 memory busses(one to Xdram and one to GDDR3) another key reason in which the PS3 has an advtnage. 

Check this out I dont know if I can find the whole article though hes wrote more.

Nagidar

 Ok, no offense, but you linked to a site, (Beyond3d, good site for the most part) than they link to another site, thats called PS3insider and thats suppose to tell me what?   BTW, they were talking about NAO32, which is the "fake" HDR the PS3 uses.

And he was talking about the Xdram buss. Read the whole article.  My point is there are many interpretation of specs id rather have someone that is a dev who tells me who he works for and what he does  rather then some guy who cant tell me what games hes made. John Carmack even said the PS3 has the potenial for"More peak performance"  GPU/ CPU or whatever the point is even he thinks the PS3 has more potenal and this is coming from a guy who supports the 360 due to it being easier to develope for.  

My point is there both great peaces of hardware but I honeslty think you will see the PS3 do things the 360 cant.  I think most the visual quality will be the same I just expect to see larger enviornments and more going on screen at a time while maintaining that high quality on the PS3 due to superior processing power( and the ability of "The Cell" to help in the graphic department. 

Anways I have to go have a good night.

John Carmack even said the PS3 has the potenial for"More peak performance" GPU/ CPU or whatever the point is even he thinks the PS3 has more potenal and this is coming from a guy who supports the 360 due to it being easier to develope for.

My point is there both great peaces of hardware but I honeslty think you will see the PS3 do things the 360 cant. I think most the visual quality will be the same I just expect to see larger enviornments and more going on screen at a time while maintaining that high quality on the PS3 due to superior processing power( and the ability of "The Cell" to help in the graphic department.

Anways I have to go have a good night.

Billyhyw

[QUOTE="Nagidar"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31559

Here I found some info that variifed what i Was talking about . Nano the writher of this article is a dev for NT who is currently making Heanvley sword. He addresses a few key issues of people criticizing the PS3 GPU. One is the 128meg bus. Which he actually points out is it has 2 memory busses(one to Xdram and one to GDDR3) another key reason in which the PS3 has an advtnage.

Check this out I dont know if I can find the whole article though hes wrote more.

Billyhyw

Ok, no offense, but you linked to a site, (Beyond3d, good site for the most part) than they link to another site, thats called PS3insider and thats suppose to tell me what? BTW, they were talking about NAO32, which is the "fake" HDR the PS3 uses.

And he was talking about the Xdram buss. Read the whole article. My point is there are many interpretation of specs id rather have someone that is a dev who tells me who he works for and what he does rather then some guy who cant tell me what games hes made. John Carmack even said the PS3 has the potenial for"More peak performance" GPU/ CPU or whatever the point is even he thinks the PS3 has more potenal and this is coming from a guy who supports the 360 due to it being easier to develope for.

My point is there both great peaces of hardware but I honeslty think you will see the PS3 do things the 360 cant. I think most the visual quality will be the same I just expect to see larger enviornments and more going on screen at a time while maintaining that high quality on the PS3 due to superior processing power( and the ability of "The Cell" to help in the graphic department.

Anways I have to go have a good night.

[QUOTE="Billyhyw"]John Carmack even said the PS3 has the potenial for"More peak performance" GPU/ CPU or whatever the point is even he thinks the PS3 has more potenal and this is coming from a guy who supports the 360 due to it being easier to develope for.

My point is there both great peaces of hardware but I honeslty think you will see the PS3 do things the 360 cant. I think most the visual quality will be the same I just expect to see larger enviornments and more going on screen at a time while maintaining that high quality on the PS3 due to superior processing power( and the ability of "The Cell" to help in the graphic department.

Anways I have to go have a good night.

Felous1

Um Peak performance is potentail and no that has been shot down by Sony themselves.  Just becuase it uses the Ram for the OS doesnt mean it cant be used for games.  All console ram is fully useable for games.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Marka1700"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Felous1"]Link ?Billyhyw

Cell and Xenon

For those who do not want to click the link:

"Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200 or better than even an Athlon XP 2800 CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores."

What has yet to happen?

SC.DA runs and looks better theres one right there. And go try to play G.R.A.W with a single core cpu and tell me how that runs.

Gamespot will also confirm that the 360 version looks better as the pc version didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards and the 360 version did.  And I have a hardtime believing you since gamespot mentiones in review they game ran like crap unless you had a good Duel core proccsor or physics card.

Um how does the Sp being better have to do with graphics.  He said it "MIGHT BE" the most impressive.  Yet when all the Gamespot editors got togehter this game didnt even get nomianted for best visuals technical in the overall awards.  But the 360 version did proof right there the 360 version looks better and it does.

http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=11603

There is another review that backs that up.

Um not really. More detailed can mean more corridors, more balconies more windows and on the pc version that is what it means as each building has more places for enemies.  Visually it doenst look better as my link and nominations prove.

Just becuase it uses the Ram for the OS doesnt mean it cant be used for games.  All console ram is fully useable for games. Billyhyw

hm Peak performance is potentail Billyhyw

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="Billyhyw"][QUOTE="Citizen_Zero"][QUOTE="XTy"]

[QUOTE="coltonnaslund"]well......then why does it look better then any PS3 game?Billyhyw

PS3 infancy,

360 approaching 3rd Year X-mas.

Look at Xbox.

In short, the Xbox and GameCube versions of Hot Pursuit II have slightly detuned graphics, mushier controls, and inexplicably, a variety of minute but tangible ommissions from the PlayStation 2 game

Most Xbox 360 launch titles look nowhere even half as good as PS3 launch titles sorry thats a fact. The only decent games the 360 launched with were Cod2, Kameo and PDZ0. Cod2 looks far worse then the PS3 version of Cod3. Kameo at best may look as good as Genjiand REFOM is far superior to PDZ0. What other great 360 games lauanched Gun and THAWL? Seriously the 360 launched wiht many last gen ports the PS3 launched with nothing worse then 360 ports.

Um no they dont. Genji is an amazing looking game if you had both consoles you would know. Yes the game sucks but the graphics are outstanding.

Id software amoung many developers has stated each core in the 360 cpu is only the power of a 1.5ghz p4/1500+ athlon xp.  That means all 3 cores only has the power of a amd 64 fx55 and a amd64 4000+ is not much less powerful.  The lack of out of order code support has really hurt the cpu power in the 360.

Even the most buget dual core cpu has more power than the 3 cores in the 360.

imprezawrx500