TRUE 360 and PS3 Specs, no FLAMING!

I tried to gather as much as i could, but i'm not exactly sure if the ps3's gpu stats are right.

Let's look at the maximum theoretical numbers for the Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs.

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

The ps3's RSX could be instead be represented ofGeForce 7 based architecture with 24 pixel pipelines, 8 vertex pipelines, 8 ROPS, 500MHz core, and 650MHz memory. In other words, it dropped from 550MHz/700MHz to 500MHz/650MHz.

I wasn't sure so i posted what i read more often.

Processors: Info taken from http://www.avsforum.com/because they already had it all.

"When I initially looked at the specifications of the Cell (PS3) and Xenos (Xbox 360) processors, it appeared that the cell processor had a big advantage over the xenos processor if both were able to harness the maximum amount of power. After looking into more detail I have come to the conclusion that the xenos processor will probably be able to perfom better than the cell processor under almost all conditions.

Both processors are stripped down and modified versions of the IBM 970 PowerPC. Each core executes at less than 1/2 the speed of the IBM 970 at the same clock frequency due to the fact that the IBM 970 has multiple execution units and will perform out-of-order execution (parallel processing) whereas the cell and xenos processors only have a single execution unit and will perform in-order execution (sequential processing). The following link illustrates the performance of a PS3 at 3.2 GHz and a Power Mac G5 at 1.6 Ghz using the linux operating system.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

Linux runs on the Power Processor Element (PPE) of the cell processor so the results should be similar to one core of the xenos processor since all three cores are the same. Both processors are clocked at 3.2 GHz.

The similarities of the two processors ends there. The xenos processor has 3 identical PPE cores where as the cell processor has only 1 PPE core and 7 SPE cores.

Cell Processor

• One general purpose PPE core that is used for the OS and the game application.
• 512 MB total memory on 2 buses which can be accesed directly only by the PPE core. 256 MB of processor main memory and 256 MB of memory used by GPU.
• 512 KB L2 cache for the PPE.
• 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB L1 data cache for the PPE.
• 7 specialized SPE cores. One is used for the OS leaving 6 for the game application.
• 256KB SRAM per SPE. No common memory between SPEs and SPE cannot access the PPEs main memory directly but the PPE can access the SPEs memory directly.
• Communications between SPE memory or to the PPE memory is performed via the Element Interconnect Bus (EIB) by either accessing ports or via DMA.
• SPEs do not have branch prediction capability.

Xenos Processor

• 3 General purpose PPE cores that are used for the OS and game application.
• 512 MB main memory that is shared by all three cores and GPU.
• 1 MB of L2 cache that is shared by the 3 cores (333 KB per core average).
• 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB data cache for each core.
• 2 Hardware threads per core.

Programming the 360

The OS does not use core 0 and uses only about 3% of the power of core 1 and 3% of the power of core 2. Therefore about 98% of the processor power of all three cores are available for the game application.

Programming the 360 is fairly easy and straight forward since a large amount of shared main memory is available, a relatively large amount of shared L2 cache is available, and information can be quickly and easily passed between different threads (cores) of the application by just passing pointers.

Typically an application will initially be developed using only one thread of a core. Once the application is developed the application can then be segmented to use multiple cores and possibly multiple hardware threads of each core. The easiest seqmentation would be to place the game control plus AI code in one core and graphics rendering code in another core. As soon as the AI code completes its operation, it would queue the information for graphics rendering core and immediately start to process the next frame. The graphics rendering code will be executing code for the current frame and the AI will be executing code for the next frame simultanously.

Segmenting a program beyond that becomes more difficult. The developer would have to first determine where the bottleneck is occuring. If it was in the AI code, he would then have to determine if parallel processing can be performed on the code (ex. In a racing program, it may be possible for the main program to process the AI for 5 racing cars and another core process the AI for the other 5 racing cars on the track at the same time). If the bottleneck was in the graphics rendering code, it may be possible for part of the graphics rendering code to be done in parallel in another core.

When a program is seqmented among all three cores, one of the cores may be active 100% of the time but the other two may only be active a very small time (10%, 20%, 50%, etc.). In this case more segmentation may be required of the core that is active 100% of the time. In this case, a new hardware thread can be added to one of the less active cores to handle 2 processes at one time. Once all the available hardware threads are used and more segmentation is still required, software threads (although not as efficient as hardware threads) can then be added until that core approaches 100% usage.

Once all three cores are executing near 100%, the maximum frame rate, sophistication, and detail capabilities will have been acheived. If the AI is issueing frames faster than the GPU can process them (maximum 60 fps at 720p or 30 fps at 1080i), more detail or sophistication can be added

Programming the PS3

The PS3 is so much more difficult to program than the 360. In a sense it is designed similar to multiprocessor systems used by specialized customers such NASA Ames Research Center. The concept is based on the principle that there is a very large amount of repetive mathematical data that can be performed in a parallel or a segmented sequential fashion (ex. one core multiples two arrays of 10000 numbers and then passes the output array to another core which performs divides on individual elements in the array which will pass the array to another core which performs some other operation on the data, etc. After the first core finishes its operation, it will acquire more data and perform the same operation).

Like the 360, the application would initially be developed using the PPE core. Next you would think that the PS3 (just like the 360) would be able to segment the game control plus AI code into one core and the graphics rendering code into another core. However that is not possible! Since the total application code may be about 100 MB and the SPE only has 256KB of memory, only about 1/400 of the total code can fit in one SPE memory. Also since there isn't any branch prediction capabilities in an SPE, branching should be done as little as possible (although I believe that the complier can insert code to cause pre-fetches so there may not be a big issue with branching).

Therefore the developer has to find code that is less than 256KB (including needed data space) that will execute in parallel.

Even if code can be found that can be segmented, data between the PPE and the SPE has to be passed back and forth via DMA which very slow compared of a pointer to the data like the 360.

If we assume that enough segment code was found that could use all the 6 SPE cores assigned to the game application, now the developer would try to balance the power among the cores. Like the 360, some or all the cores may have a very low utilization. Adding more hardware threads are not possible since each core has only one hardware thread. Adding software threads probably will not work due to the memory constraint. So the only option is an overlay scheme where the PPE will transfer new code using DMA to the SPE when the last overlay finishes processing. This is very time consuming and code has to be found that does not overlap in the same time frame."

Memory:

Memory - PS3's 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz vs. Xbox 360's 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

What all this means is that the bigger memory you have, combined with a fast processor, the faster you can process and display complex graphics, which affects the overall framerate speed of your game. In this case, the PS3 has half of the installed memory of the Xbox 360 but can process data faster. It's like trying to swallow a large chunk of data and your processor determines how fast you can chew it. Which will be faster - a small chunk chewed at 3.2Ghz or a big chunk chewed at 700 Mhz?

Media Type - PS3's BLUray Discs vs. Xbox 360's DVD-9

Most game discs nowadays are stored on DVD-9's much like those of the Xbox 360. What Sony has got going for them is that they're also the manufacturer of BLUray which is a high-definition storage disk capable of holding 54 Gigagbytes of data. This type of storage can be a potential necessity in the future.

Sound - both sporting 5.1 Dolby Surround Sound

Online potential - Both consoles feature Ethernet and Wi-Fi capabilities. They come in handy when playing online, or for non-gaming activities like downloading music and videos. Microsoft has an edge because it already has an online network in place.

all i saw was "blah blah blah. bleh bleh bleh"

both systems are out, we can see what they are producing, the estimated numbers talk can die.

end product > numbers

I tried to gather as much as i could, but i'm not exactly sure if the ps3's gpu stats are right.

Let's look at the maximum theoretical numbers for the Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs.

Triangle Setup
Xbox 360 - 500 Million Triangles/sec
PS3 - 250 Million Triangles/sec

Vertex Shader Processing
Xbox 360 - 6.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 2.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 16 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.5 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 12 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec (using only 8 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 1.0 Billion Vertices/sec

Filtered Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 12.0 Billion Texels/sec

Vertex Texture Fetch
Xbox 360 - 8.0 Billion Texels/sec
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Texels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing with 16 Filtered Texels Per Cycle (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Pixel Shader Processing without Textures (Pixel ALU x Clock)
Xbox 360 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using all 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 20.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 40 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 18.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 36 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Pixels/sec (using 32 of the 48 Unified Pipelines)
PS3 - 24.0 Billion Pixels/sec

Multisampled Fill Rate
Xbox 360 - 16.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz)
PS3 - 8.0 Billion Samples/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz)

Pixel Fill Rate with 4x Multisampled Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 4 Samples x 500MHz / 4)
PS3 - 2.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 2 Samples x 500MHz / 4)

Pixel Fill Rate without Anti-Aliasing
Xbox 360 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)
PS3 - 4.0 Billion Pixels/sec (8 ROPS x 500MHz)

Frame Buffer Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 256.0 GB/sec (dedicated for frame buffer rendering)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with other graphics data: textures and vertices)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for textures and vertices)

Texture/Vertex Memory Bandwidth
Xbox 360 - 22.4 GB/sec (shared with CPU)
Xbox 360 - 14.4 GB/sec (with 8.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
Xbox 360 - 12.4 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for CPU)
PS3 - 20.8 GB/sec (shared with frame buffer)
PS3 - 10.8 GB/sec (with 10.0 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)
PS3 - 8.4 GB/sec (with 12.4 GB/sec subtracted for frame buffer)

Shader Model
Xbox 360 - Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture
PS3 - Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture

The ps3's RSX could be instead be represented ofGeForce 7 based architecture with 24 pixel pipelines, 8 vertex pipelines, 8 ROPS, 500MHz core, and 650MHz memory. In other words, it dropped from 550MHz/700MHz to 500MHz/650MHz.

I wasn't sure so i posted what i read more often.

Processors: Info taken from http://www.avsforum.com/because they already had it all.

"When I initially looked at the specifications of the Cell (PS3) and Xenos (Xbox 360) processors, it appeared that the cell processor had a big advantage over the xenos processor if both were able to harness the maximum amount of power. After looking into more detail I have come to the conclusion that the xenos processor will probably be able to perfom better than the cell processor under almost all conditions.

Both processors are stripped down and modified versions of the IBM 970 PowerPC. Each core executes at less than 1/2 the speed of the IBM 970 at the same clock frequency due to the fact that the IBM 970 has multiple execution units and will perform out-of-order execution (parallel processing) whereas the cell and xenos processors only have a single execution unit and will perform in-order execution (sequential processing). The following link illustrates the performance of a PS3 at 3.2 GHz and a Power Mac G5 at 1.6 Ghz using the linux operating system.

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/11/playstation-3-performance/

Linux runs on the Power Processor Element (PPE) of the cell processor so the results should be similar to one core of the xenos processor since all three cores are the same. Both processors are clocked at 3.2 GHz.

The similarities of the two processors ends there. The xenos processor has 3 identical PPE cores where as the cell processor has only 1 PPE core and 7 SPE cores.

Cell Processor

• One general purpose PPE core that is used for the OS and the game application.
• 512 MB total memory on 2 buses which can be accesed directly only by the PPE core. 256 MB of processor main memory and 256 MB of memory used by GPU.
• 512 KB L2 cache for the PPE.
• 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB L1 data cache for the PPE.
• 7 specialized SPE cores. One is used for the OS leaving 6 for the game application.
• 256KB SRAM per SPE. No common memory between SPEs and SPE cannot access the PPEs main memory directly but the PPE can access the SPEs memory directly.
• Communications between SPE memory or to the PPE memory is performed via the Element Interconnect Bus (EIB) by either accessing ports or via DMA.
• SPEs do not have branch prediction capability.

Xenos Processor

• 3 General purpose PPE cores that are used for the OS and game application.
• 512 MB main memory that is shared by all three cores and GPU.
• 1 MB of L2 cache that is shared by the 3 cores (333 KB per core average).
• 32 KB L1 instruction cache and 32 KB data cache for each core.
• 2 Hardware threads per core.

Programming the 360

The OS does not use core 0 and uses only about 3% of the power of core 1 and 3% of the power of core 2. Therefore about 98% of the processor power of all three cores are available for the game application.

Programming the 360 is fairly easy and straight forward since a large amount of shared main memory is available, a relatively large amount of shared L2 cache is available, and information can be quickly and easily passed between different threads (cores) of the application by just passing pointers.

Typically an application will initially be developed using only one thread of a core. Once the application is developed the application can then be segmented to use multiple cores and possibly multiple hardware threads of each core. The easiest seqmentation would be to place the game control plus AI code in one core and graphics rendering code in another core. As soon as the AI code completes its operation, it would queue the information for graphics rendering core and immediately start to process the next frame. The graphics rendering code will be executing code for the current frame and the AI will be executing code for the next frame simultanously.

Segmenting a program beyond that becomes more difficult. The developer would have to first determine where the bottleneck is occuring. If it was in the AI code, he would then have to determine if parallel processing can be performed on the code (ex. In a racing program, it may be possible for the main program to process the AI for 5 racing cars and another core process the AI for the other 5 racing cars on the track at the same time). If the bottleneck was in the graphics rendering code, it may be possible for part of the graphics rendering code to be done in parallel in another core.

When a program is seqmented among all three cores, one of the cores may be active 100% of the time but the other two may only be active a very small time (10%, 20%, 50%, etc.). In this case more segmentation may be required of the core that is active 100% of the time. In this case, a new hardware thread can be added to one of the less active cores to handle 2 processes at one time. Once all the available hardware threads are used and more segmentation is still required, software threads (although not as efficient as hardware threads) can then be added until that core approaches 100% usage.

Once all three cores are executing near 100%, the maximum frame rate, sophistication, and detail capabilities will have been acheived. If the AI is issueing frames faster than the GPU can process them (maximum 60 fps at 720p or 30 fps at 1080i), more detail or sophistication can be added

Programming the PS3

The PS3 is so much more difficult to program than the 360. In a sense it is designed similar to multiprocessor systems used by specialized customers such NASA Ames Research Center. The concept is based on the principle that there is a very large amount of repetive mathematical data that can be performed in a parallel or a segmented sequential fashion (ex. one core multiples two arrays of 10000 numbers and then passes the output array to another core which performs divides on individual elements in the array which will pass the array to another core which performs some other operation on the data, etc. After the first core finishes its operation, it will acquire more data and perform the same operation).

Like the 360, the application would initially be developed using the PPE core. Next you would think that the PS3 (just like the 360) would be able to segment the game control plus AI code into one core and the graphics rendering code into another core. However that is not possible! Since the total application code may be about 100 MB and the SPE only has 256KB of memory, only about 1/400 of the total code can fit in one SPE memory. Also since there isn't any branch prediction capabilities in an SPE, branching should be done as little as possible (although I believe that the complier can insert code to cause pre-fetches so there may not be a big issue with branching).

Therefore the developer has to find code that is less than 256KB (including needed data space) that will execute in parallel.

Even if code can be found that can be segmented, data between the PPE and the SPE has to be passed back and forth via DMA which very slow compared of a pointer to the data like the 360.

If we assume that enough segment code was found that could use all the 6 SPE cores assigned to the game application, now the developer would try to balance the power among the cores. Like the 360, some or all the cores may have a very low utilization. Adding more hardware threads are not possible since each core has only one hardware thread. Adding software threads probably will not work due to the memory constraint. So the only option is an overlay scheme where the PPE will transfer new code using DMA to the SPE when the last overlay finishes processing. This is very time consuming and code has to be found that does not overlap in the same time frame."

Memory:

Memory - PS3's 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz vs. Xbox 360's 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

What all this means is that the bigger memory you have, combined with a fast processor, the faster you can process and display complex graphics, which affects the overall framerate speed of your game. In this case, the PS3 has half of the installed memory of the Xbox 360 but can process data faster. It's like trying to swallow a large chunk of data and your processor determines how fast you can chew it. Which will be faster - a small chunk chewed at 3.2Ghz or a big chunk chewed at 700 Mhz?

Media Type - PS3's BLUray Discs vs. Xbox 360's DVD-9

Most game discs nowadays are stored on DVD-9's much like those of the Xbox 360. What Sony has got going for them is that they're also the manufacturer of BLUray which is a high-definition storage disk capable of holding 54 Gigagbytes of data. This type of storage can be a potential necessity in the future.

Sound - both sporting 5.1 Dolby Surround Sound

Online potential - Both consoles feature Ethernet and Wi-Fi capabilities. They come in handy when playing online, or for non-gaming activities like downloading music and videos. Microsoft has an edge because it already has an online network in place.

LibertySaint

....

...........

..........

..

...

this should be good

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858

http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360

Both from supposed game developers

The PS3 one has more crap i don't understand but w/e, make of it what you will. The first one seems informed, and it certainly goes against what most people here are saying. He could be outright BSing though.

Edit:

This part is interesting i wonder what people have to say:

"The biggest ugly (and this really is a big one) in the Xbox360 diagram should be the location of the CPU relative to the main system memory. It has to be accessed through the GPU's memory controller and shares the same 128 bit bus to GDDR3. The Xbox360 GPU's 22.4GB/s bandwidth to the system's unified memory, but this bandwidth is split between the GPU's needs and the CPU's. This means that if the Xenon(Xbox360 CPU) was using its full 21.6GB/s bandwidth to system memory, there would be 800MB/s left for the GPU. If the GPU was using its full bandwidth to this memory, none would be left for the Xenon. Additionally, the south bridge(I/O devices) are connected through the GPU also, and all of these devices are actually destined to go to the CPU unless sound for the Xbox360 is done on the Xenos. The impact of this is considerably less since I/O devices probably won't exceed more than a few hundred MB/s during a game, and isn't shared by GPUs 22.4GB/s access to main memory. This bandwidth is still going through the same bus that the CPU uses to access RAM and depletes off of the 21.6GB/s communication with RAM and the Xenos."

Memory - PS3's 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz vs. Xbox 360's 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

What all this means is that the bigger memory you have, combined with a fast processor, the faster you can process and display complex graphics, which affects the overall framerate speed of your game. In this case, the PS3 has half of the installed memory of the Xbox 360 but can process data faster. It's like trying to swallow a large chunk of data and your processor determines how fast you can chew it. Which will be faster - a small chunk chewed at 3.2Ghz or a big chunk chewed at 700 Mhz?

LibertySaint

All that copying and pasting you did... and you still got it wrong. That XDR Ram is the Cells ram, there is another 256 GDDR3 like the 360 has for the RSX in the PS3. Just thought I'd point that out - and arguing specs means little to nothing, specs can be skewed in many different directions.. the games are where the real proof is going to be.

PS3 Memory - 256MB XDR for Cell, 256MB GDDR3 for the RSX.

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858

http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360

Both from supposed game developers

The PS3 one has more crap i don't understand but w/e, make of it what you will. The first one seems informed, and it certainly goes against what most people here are saying. He could be outright BSing though.

ace52387

Yeah, cool, okay i didn't see those sites before LOL, well there is some info there, if it is any diffrent, and IF ITs from a devloper, then trust that one not mine.

I posted this for people who want to know the specs, no matter if the systems are already out and competing. Its not for the masses who just want to game. This is obviously for people want to look more in depth into the systems. Yeah it is kinda...long but yup. :)LibertySaint

and its kinda wrong. the PS3 has 256 main board ram, and 256 vram, this equals, for the mathmatically impaired, 512. meanwhile the 360 has 512 shared. it CANNOT run all the ram to one system operation. which means it would have to allocate some for main board and some for Vram.

[QUOTE="ace52387"]

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858

http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360

Both from supposed game developers

The PS3 one has more crap i don't understand but w/e, make of it what you will. The first one seems informed, and it certainly goes against what most people here are saying. He could be outright BSing though.

LibertySaint

Yeah, cool, okay i didn't see those sites before LOL, well there is some info there, if it is any diffrent, and IF ITs from a devloper, then trust that one not mine.

Ah my bad, the xbox one was from an IGN editor.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

Memory - PS3's 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz vs. Xbox 360's 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

What all this means is that the bigger memory you have, combined with a fast processor, the faster you can process and display complex graphics, which affects the overall framerate speed of your game. In this case, the PS3 has half of the installed memory of the Xbox 360 but can process data faster. It's like trying to swallow a large chunk of data and your processor determines how fast you can chew it. Which will be faster - a small chunk chewed at 3.2Ghz or a big chunk chewed at 700 Mhz?

Primevil702

All that copying and pasting you did... and you still got it wrong. That XDR Ram is the Cells ram, there is another 256 GDDR3 like the 360 has for the RSX in the PS3. Just thought I'd point that out - and arguing specs means little to nothing, specs can be skewed in many different directions.. the games are where the real proof is going to be.

PS3 Memory - 256MB XDR for Cell, 256MB GDDR3 for the RSX.

I'm not arguing specs, i said i found as much info i could and posted it, if it is wrong please correct it, do not argue, please.

I posted this for people who want to know the specs, no matter if the systems are already out and competing. Its not for the masses who just want to game. This is obviously for people want to look more in depth into the systems. Yeah it is kinda...long but yup. :)LibertySaint

Do take into account that most of those 360 specs u placed on there where theoretical assumptions of wat it could do just with either gpu or cpu at one time. not both so your thread means nothing...please try agin cus it was interesting

all i saw was "blah blah blah. bleh bleh bleh"

both systems are out, we can see what they are producing, the estimated numbers talk can die.

end product > numbers

SIP_YEK_NOD

fair enough.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]I posted this for people who want to know the specs, no matter if the systems are already out and competing. Its not for the masses who just want to game. This is obviously for people want to look more in depth into the systems. Yeah it is kinda...long but yup. :)ktrotter11

Do take into account that most of those 360 specs u placed on there where theoretical assumptions of wat it could do just with either gpu or cpu at one time. not both so your thread means nothing...please try agin cus it was interesting

kk, i'll try in a few days after more research and mabe post it in General hardware

seems like i have some things wrong according to some, i'll look it all up and get back here with a post, hopefully.

[QUOTE="Primevil702"]

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

Memory - PS3's 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz vs. Xbox 360's 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

What all this means is that the bigger memory you have, combined with a fast processor, the faster you can process and display complex graphics, which affects the overall framerate speed of your game. In this case, the PS3 has half of the installed memory of the Xbox 360 but can process data faster. It's like trying to swallow a large chunk of data and your processor determines how fast you can chew it. Which will be faster - a small chunk chewed at 3.2Ghz or a big chunk chewed at 700 Mhz?

LibertySaint

All that copying and pasting you did... and you still got it wrong. That XDR Ram is the Cells ram, there is another 256 GDDR3 like the 360 has for the RSX in the PS3. Just thought I'd point that out - and arguing specs means little to nothing, specs can be skewed in many different directions.. the games are where the real proof is going to be.

PS3 Memory - 256MB XDR for Cell, 256MB GDDR3 for the RSX.

I'm not arguing specs, i said i found as much info i could and posted it, if it is wrong please correct it, do not argue, please.

where did you get any specs for the RSX? nvidia didn't reveal anything since their showing of the card back in 2005.

[QUOTE="SIP_YEK_NOD"]

all i saw was "blah blah blah. bleh bleh bleh"

both systems are out, we can see what they are producing, the estimated numbers talk can die.

end product > numbers

SambaLele

fair enough.

yeah... tho i'm not argueing i'm just trying to post truthful info of each systems specs for the less informed on topic at hand, not which system is better in the end or what has the better end products...

It doesn't matter how good the technology is unless there are games that use it and show it.

Memory - PS3's 256MB XDR @ 3.2GHz vs. Xbox 360's 512MB GDDR3 @ 700MHz

What all this means is that the bigger memory you have, combined with a fast processor, the faster you can process and display complex graphics, which affects the overall framerate speed of your game. In this case, the PS3 has half of the installed memory of the Xbox 360 but can process data faster. It's like trying to swallow a large chunk of data and your processor determines how fast you can chew it. Which will be faster - a small chunk chewed at 3.2Ghz or a big chunk chewed at 700 Mhz?


For the people who say ps3 sucks cause it only has 256mb of ram for some games, You guys might not even have enough for the GPU or RAM causing bottleneck, where the ps3 has ram running at 3.2ghz... my pcs ram is only at 1.1ghz..., meaning it can break down that data so fast that even if you guys had 512 not shared at 700mhz 256MB 3.2ghz would be just as good probaby even better.

It doesn't matter how good the technology is unless there are games that use it and show it.

H3OXTC

=)

That was a very good read, although I didn't understand all of it of course. Seems like the 360 is a lot more powerful than I thought it was. Still, these numbers mean nothing if put in the wrong hands of developers, so I'll look forward to seeing these two consoles at their peak! Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Mass Effect.... these games should all show what the 360 can do, and even that can be surpassed. Technology is crazy nowadays :).ParkCarsHere

:? Weird, and yet almost 2 years after being out on the market...IT STILL HASN'T!!

yet the PS3 only being out 8 months...

thread/

:) so much for those "Specs"

Thread/

What happened to No flaming, this thread is favor of neither, yet some have to say, oh this that and looks like this isn't doing this....

damn i knew i shoulda posted this in general hardware..

FYI: screen shots of one game mean nothing its a mix of all

FYI again: kill zone 2 just looks like any other next gen game, the specs i showed didn't say that RSX wasn't anything less then exceptional, neither with the 360's, it is just specs, NOT PRODUCTS.

i won't act like i know what these numbers mean, i'll just point out that i see a lot of numbers that seem to favor the 360.paullywog

What happened to No flaming, this thread is favor of neither, yet some have to say, oh this that and looks like this isn't doing this....

damn i knew i shoulda posted this in general hardware..

FYI: screen shots of one game mean nothing its a mix of all

FYI again: kill zone 2 just looks like any other next gen game, the specs i showed didn't say that RSX wasn't anything less then exceptional, neither with the 360's, it is just specs, NOT PRODUCTS.

LibertySaint

Funny you say that this is not a flamming thread yet you seem to be defendnig the 360 against the proff I've posted here, which your so called "Spec"It would seem you'd like us to think other wise.

So it's one game....so then tell me....why isn't there a single exclusive game out there on the 360 that looks more impressive than this after almost 2 years of being on the market??

It hasn't even been a year yet and we are already seeing games like Heavenly Sword and UT3 (both more impressive than anything on the 360 so far) before the year is up. At this same time last year 360 Only had gears and it only ran at 30fps, UT3 (a game that looks better and on a much larger scale) is already said to run better on PS3 than Gears on 360.

What's up?!

[QUOTE="paullywog"]i won't act like i know what these numbers mean, i'll just point out that i see a lot of numbers that seem to favor the 360.ssjgoku808

numbers really don't matter THAT MUCH, at this point with games beacuse they are so great, you'll great things on both platforms, some that will look better, be more technically stunning or just play well. Its up to the devlepors to use the numbers and great great porducts that will be so greatr that the numbers won't even matter, sorta like killzone 2 graphics, its superass what u think the RSX could and Mass effect with the 360's GPU evens those numbers out.

The Next generation of consoles for the next generation of games, with next generation of AAA on both platforms....

( hope those extinguishes some flamming.)

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

Online potential - Both consoles feature Ethernet and Wi-Fi capabilities. They come in handy when playing online, or for non-gaming activities like downloading music and videos. Microsoft has an edge because it already has an online network in place.

hobbit93

Are you mentally ill? What gave you the bright idea to quote all that text just to post your fanboy thoughts?

Real World Example.

Alaptop having shared memory for OS and Graphic
A laptop having separate memory for OS and separate memory for Graphic.

Which one is faster?

Real World Example.

Alaptop having shared memory for OS and Graphic
A laptop having separate memory for OS and separate memory for Graphic.

Which one is faster?

gamenux

If you use up most your RAM on a shared memory system, it will slow down. You would have to optimize the game to use less than the maximum shared memory.

So from reading those specs, the PS3 looks better playing Motorstorm than if ported on Xbox 360 and Gears of War looks better on Xbox 360 than if ported to PS3. :DScreamDream

Thinks of UT3 (looking better and on a scale of at least 3x that of Gears of War, said to run better on PS3 than Gears did on 360 last year.)...What???

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]

What happened to No flaming, this thread is favor of neither, yet some have to say, oh this that and looks like this isn't doing this....

damn i knew i shoulda posted this in general hardware..

FYI: screen shots of one game mean nothing its a mix of all

FYI again: kill zone 2 just looks like any other next gen game, the specs i showed didn't say that RSX wasn't anything less then exceptional, neither with the 360's, it is just specs, NOT PRODUCTS.

proof11102

Funny you say that this is not a flamming thread yet you seem to be defendnig the 360 against the proff I've posted here, which your so called "Spec"It would seem you'd like us to think other wise.

So it's one game....so then tell me....why isn't there a single exclusive game out there on the 360 that looks more impressive than this after almost 2 years of being on the market??

It hasn't even been a year yet and we are already seeing games like Heavenly Sword and UT3 (both more impressive than anything on the 360 so far) before the year is up. At this same time last year 360 Only had gears and it only ran at 30fps, UT3 (a game that looks better and on a much larger scale) is already said to run better on PS3 than Gears on 360.

What's up?!

I'm not going to flame...much...

i don't want to flame so i'll just say:

Two Words to YOU: MASS EFFECT

Anyways, to all those who are thinking i'am a fan boy i'am not, i have both systems love them both, he just asked me to demonstarte those specs so... ME is undoubtly the best looking game yet, anyone who doesn't agree is simply fanboy sure killzone 2 looks great and Ut3 (oh saying Ut3 it is also on the 360 running exactly the same, well actually a bit better, but anyways, no people will ask me for links for that info and i have no because that was word i was told...by undisclosed sources.) are great but they aren't the best of best, i'm sorry but that is the truth. I will agree Kill zone 2 does look good, not as good as the CGI trailer in 05 but none less its still pretty,

[QUOTE="ScreamDream"]So from reading those specs, the PS3 looks better playing Motorstorm than if ported on Xbox 360 and Gears of War looks better on Xbox 360 than if ported to PS3. :Dproof11102

Thinks of UT3 (looking better and on a scale of at least 3x that of Gears of War, said to run better on PS3 than Gears did on 360 last year.)...What???

optimization, gears was never truly finished, it was playable but incomplete, plus UT3 on the 360 plays better then the ps3 version.

just..who cares..the games are great...this thread isn't about all that...

[QUOTE="proof11102"]

[QUOTE="ScreamDream"]So from reading those specs, the PS3 looks better playing Motorstorm than if ported on Xbox 360 and Gears of War looks better on Xbox 360 than if ported to PS3. :DLibertySaint

Thinks of UT3 (looking better and on a scale of at least 3x that of Gears of War, said to run better on PS3 than Gears did on 360 last year.)...What???

optimization, gears was never truly finished, it was playable but incomplete, plus UT3 on the 360 plays better then the ps3 version.

just..who cares..the games are great...this thread isn't about all that...

the PS3 supports dobly 7.1 too...legendbyname

I think he knows that.........

Thats one of many things he left out.......

lets just compare the games.......(1st & 3rd party, not ports....lol) and we can tell which is more powerful.....

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"][QUOTE="proof11102"]

[QUOTE="ScreamDream"]So from reading those specs, the PS3 looks better playing Motorstorm than if ported on Xbox 360 and Gears of War looks better on Xbox 360 than if ported to PS3. :Dssjgoku808

Thinks of UT3 (looking better and on a scale of at least 3x that of Gears of War, said to run better on PS3 than Gears did on 360 last year.)...What???

optimization, gears was never truly finished, it was playable but incomplete, plus UT3 on the 360 plays better then the ps3 version.

just..who cares..the games are great...this thread isn't about all that...

argh my orginal post didn't show up so i'll just repeat it with the edit.

I'll eat some humble pie since u CAN"T READ! why don't read all the posts? i said i heard it...just can't offical confirm it with a link...just...wait...

PS: Cow Alert!

How can the 360 be more powerful when Sony was claiming the opposite for 2 years and MS did nothing to defend their product!I mean if 360 had better hardware MS would use it as a marketing tool...But instead they say nothing about it.And also why would Sony be so fool to lie about a technical issue which every person withcomputer knowledge can investigate?

How can the 360 be more powerful when Sony was claiming the opposite for 2 years and MS did nothing to defend their product!I mean if 360 had better hardware MS would use it as a marketing tool...But instead they say nothing about it.And also why would Sony be so fool to lie about a technical issue which every person withcomputer knowledge can investigate?

SumerianDaemon

idk, those are MOST OF the Specs, liek some pointed out i have to do some revisions, which i'm working on, but the GPU and CPU info is correct, the ram, sound options are abit weird for both apprently.

and sony isn't humble, the complete opposite, microsoft is, hard to believe but its true, u can look at e3 07 for refrence, sony had mulitple screen, lots of production and heavy speechs during there confrence, microsft: one screen a pool for lighting and ambience and fan musics, no huge speechs, all end of year release games, nothing to heavy nothing to light, just enough to keep people satisfies, sony went all out and wanted an epic ambience and wanted people to think they are the undoubtly the best.. its called press and Public relations.

also if MS mention the hardware, they would have to mention failure rates as well. that where the 360 specs are the worest, the hardware isn't reliable, sure its great but in the end not long lasting (with some exceptions of coarse)

sony likes to talk, but they don't say much. ya know? As did microsoft at the birth of the 360, but they learned and eat some humble pie, which sony needs to do to, everything will be much better then, less flmaes, less fan boys and more games, more quailty games with less crap to go with them. there is still competition, but humble competetion, where one company respects the other, which atm can not be said....

i actually understood that...wow i feel smart. Anyways, sum it up

ps3 has higher peak performance, but reaches it rarely and with great developer difficulty

x360 has lower peak performance but reaches it more often and it ver easy for developers to do their stuff.

The rest is complex number crunching

[QUOTE="SumerianDaemon"]

How can the 360 be more powerful when Sony was claiming the opposite for 2 years and MS did nothing to defend their product!I mean if 360 had better hardware MS would use it as a marketing tool...But instead they say nothing about it.And also why would Sony be so fool to lie about a technical issue which every person withcomputer knowledge can investigate?

LibertySaint

idk, those are MOST OF the Specs, liek some pointed out i have to do some revisions, which i'm working on, but the GPU and CPU info is correct, the ram, sound options are abit weird for both apprently.

and sony isn't humble, the complete opposite, microsoft is, hard to believe but its true, u can look at e3 07 for refrence, sony had mulitple screen, lots of production and heavy speechs during there confrence, microsft: one screen a pool for lighting and ambience and fan musics, no huge speechs, all end of year release games, nothing to heavy nothing to light, just enough to keep people satisfies, sony went all out and wanted an epic ambience and wanted people to think they are the undoubtly the best.. its called press and Public relations.

also if MS mention the hardware, they would have to mention failure rates as well. that where the 360 specs are the worest, the hardware isn't reliable, sure its great but in the end not long lasting (with some exceptions of coarse)

sony likes to talk, but they don't say much. ya know? As did microsoft at the birth of the 360, but they learned and eat some humble pie, which sony needs to do to, everything will be much better then, less flmaes, less fan boys and more games, more quailty games with less crap to go with them. there is still competition, but humble competetion, where one company respects the other, which atm can not be said....

finally... i was waiting for someone to type this, but i was too lazy. thank you, on behalf of all the people that are not influenced by propaganda in the system wars thread.

PS3>360

Come on, we all know that already. Halo is the biggest bugget game for the 360 and it looks average.

Show me a 360 gameplay video that has a lot of things going on at the same time like Lair. Show me a game that that can be compared to Heavenly Sword, Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank. Even Resistance has more things going on at the same time than any other 360 game.

Please SHOW ME. I don't want you to post game Tittles or Screenshots. I want gameplay videos.