Truth to be told, PS3 hardware performance always struggled to keep up with X360

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Over the years, the PS3 exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep the performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi alive, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Yea, pretty much all multi-plats on PS3 are a low-rez, blurry, screen-teary, low-rez texture, no AA, choppy framerate, lots of pop-up, no grass (lol) inferior versions of the games that are only a step above the Wii.

lol@Cell...

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Mystery_Writer

for something that's supposed to be multiple times as powerful as the 360, the ps3 sure took an rather interesting route this gen with all those inferior multiplats. even the exclusives don't look as good as halo 4 despite how much cows like to tell themselves otherwise. i feel cheated by sony this gen. :(

Sony has made a mistake with the PS3 architecture which led to inferior multiplats.

But the exclusives really showed the true colours of PS3, that's where it shined the brightest. 360 exclusives failed to deliver in the exclusive department, but it really dominated in the multiplat department.

I think 360 has a better hardware design. It's as powerful as PS3 but far easier to develop for. PS3, on the other hand, has a bluray drive and is more reliable.

2 Teraflops, it was supposed to be twice (!) as powerful as 360 :lol:

That's what cows raved about at these forums in 2005 anyway.

Sony are masterminds in how they managed to delude their oh so devoted fanbase.

Both are terrible.

However, the 360's architecture is actually developer friendly, unlike the overly complex and unbalanced pile of trash that is the PS3.

360 has better architecture but PS3 has better devs and a company that doesn't abuse their fans.

Any PC gamer with a bit of hardware knowledge would know that nearly in all cases a build with slightly more powerful GPU and a slightly weaker CPU will trump a build with slightly more powerful CPU and a slightly weaker GPU. When it comes to gaming GPU is more important than CPU, it is as simple as that.GhoX

A GPU is just a CPU with a math co-pro, if the CPU can do floating point you don't even need a GPU.

The reason for GPU is that due to economics, most computer companies provide a CPU without advanced math capabilities, so gamers have to put one in : the GPU.

Now with the rise of APU's and more clear thinking in the industry, in the next 10-20 most likely GPU's will go the way of the dodo, and they really should because that holds back PC gaming to being a niche hobby rather than something anybody with a PC can do.

If games did not require a GPU anybody could walk into Walmart, buy an e-machines and play games.

Right now they can't do that, it require specialized hardware and knowledge.

Yep the PowerPc architecture won't fly any longer in the console world.

360 has better architecture but PS3 has better devs and a company that doesn't abuse their fans.

ZombieKiller7

Amazes me how much this fact is neglected.

Thats a no brainer, 360 of course.

[QUOTE="GhoX"]Any PC gamer with a bit of hardware knowledge would know that nearly in all cases a build with slightly more powerful GPU and a slightly weaker CPU will trump a build with slightly more powerful CPU and a slightly weaker GPU. When it comes to gaming GPU is more important than CPU, it is as simple as that.ZombieKiller7

A GPU is just a CPU with a math co-pro, if the CPU can do floating point you don't even need a GPU.

The reason for GPU is that due to economics, most computer companies provide a CPU without advanced math capabilities, so gamers have to put one in : the GPU.

Now with the rise of APU's and more clear thinking in the industry, in the next 10-20 most likely GPU's will go the way of the dodo, and they really should because that holds back PC gaming to being a niche hobby rather than something anybody with a PC can do.

If games did not require a GPU anybody could walk into Walmart, buy an e-machines and play games.

Right now they can't do that, it require specialized hardware and knowledge.

I'm still waiting for 120 fps and 4d for PS3. Maybe 2013 is finally the year it happens.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Jacobistheman

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Jacobistheman

Who cares?

The Xbox was clearly more powerful than the PS2 and showed it consistently. Cows rave about the PS3's "amazing" hardware and how it's so much better than the 360 but the vast majority of multiplatform titles end up better on the 360 and the PS3 only as a few games that are marginally better looking than the 360's best (if that, as I'd say Gears 3 and Halo 4 are on par with the PS3's best, if not slightly better).

It's great that the PS3's hardware is great on paper (well, for a console) but if the results don't show that supposed superiority, it doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

360 has better architecture but PS3 has better devs and a company that doesn't abuse their fans.

ToScA-

Amazes me how much this fact is neglected.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

360 has better architecture but PS3 has better devs and a company that doesn't abuse their fans.

ToScA-

Amazes me how much this fact is neglected.

I wouldn't say they're better, they just have different priorities (IE visual fidelity).

360 is easier to dev for.

Came out earlier.

Has WAAAAAY worse looking games :lol:

explain that one :lol:

360 is easier to dev for.

Came out earlier.

Has WAAAAAY worse looking games :lol:

explain that one :lol:

Eddie-Vedder

Halo 4,witcher 2, gears 3 and forza horizon say hi.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

360 is easier to dev for.

Came out earlier.

Has WAAAAAY worse looking games :lol:

explain that one :lol:

super600

Halo 4,witcher 2, gears 3 and forza horizon say hi.

[QUOTE="GhoX"]Any PC gamer with a bit of hardware knowledge would know that nearly in all cases a build with slightly more powerful GPU and a slightly weaker CPU will trump a build with slightly more powerful CPU and a slightly weaker GPU. When it comes to gaming GPU is more important than CPU, it is as simple as that.ZombieKiller7

A GPU is just a CPU with a math co-pro, if the CPU can do floating point you don't even need a GPU.

The reason for GPU is that due to economics, most computer companies provide a CPU without advanced math capabilities, so gamers have to put one in : the GPU.

Now with the rise of APU's and more clear thinking in the industry, in the next 10-20 most likely GPU's will go the way of the dodo, and they really should because that holds back PC gaming to being a niche hobby rather than something anybody with a PC can do.

If games did not require a GPU anybody could walk into Walmart, buy an e-machines and play games.

Right now they can't do that, it require specialized hardware and knowledge.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

360 is easier to dev for.

Came out earlier.

Has WAAAAAY worse looking games :lol:

explain that one :lol:

Eddie-Vedder

Halo 4,witcher 2, gears 3 and forza horizon say hi.

You calling someone else blind.

Oh boy, the irony almost hurts. :lol:

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

360 is easier to dev for.

Came out earlier.

Has WAAAAAY worse looking games :lol:

explain that one :lol:

Eddie-Vedder

Halo 4,witcher 2, gears 3 and forza horizon say hi.

:lol:

Those games look close to ps3 exclusives usually or about the same as ps3 exclusives.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

360 has better architecture but PS3 has better devs and a company that doesn't abuse their fans.

ToScA-

Amazes me how much this fact is neglected.

[QUOTE="super600"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

360 is easier to dev for.

Came out earlier.

Has WAAAAAY worse looking games :lol:

explain that one :lol:

Eddie-Vedder

Halo 4,witcher 2, gears 3 and forza horizon say hi.

I love how cows always said: "its all because of lazy developers" :lol:

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

blackace

LOL. I haven't yet gotten to Gears 3, but Forza Horizons especially looks VERY mediocre graphically. Granted it's an open world game, but it doesn't even look as good as Burnout Paradise did on PS3 and maybe not even better than Midnight Club - and I should know because I've played both within the last couple of months (platinum in Burnout on PS3 and 1000 on Forza Horizon on 360). I liked the idea of an open world Forza/Gran Turismo game... but they dropped the ball on this one a little bit almost taking too many influences from other games rather than keeping it true to Forza. (even the interfaces in the game look like a clone of Dirt 2/Dirt 3). They especially dropped the ball with the terrible, glitchy, and pointless multiplayer. Good lord.

Halo 4 I found keeps up just fine with the top PS3 exclusives, it would be splitting hairs for me.

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Lol Wut? You can't confuse poor porting with poor performance of the PS3. Everything developed on the PS3 did exactly the same thing to the Xbox 360. You have to look at exclusives, where (IMO) the PS3 looks better than the 360. (I have both) If you look at the raw numbers, the PS3 has faster hardware and more capable. 2Chalupas

LOL. I haven't yet gotten to Gears 3, but Forza Horizons especially looks VERY mediocre graphically. Granted it's an open world game, but it doesn't even look as good as Burnout Paradise did on PS3 and maybe not even better than Midnight Club - and I should know because I've played both within the last couple of months (platinum in Burnout on PS3 and 1000 on Forza Horizon on 360). I liked the idea of an open world Forza/Gran Turismo game... but they dropped the ball on this one a little bit almost taking too many influences from other games rather than keeping it true to Forza. (even the interfaces in the game look like a clone of Dirt 2/Dirt 3). They especially dropped the ball with the terrible, glitchy, and pointless multiplayer. Good lord.

Halo 4 I found keeps up just fine with the top PS3 exclusives, it would be splitting hairs for me.

What? :?

Forza Horizon is nowhere near mediocre by console standards.

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Mystery_Writer

Some hardcore cows still thing that ps3 have 2x the performance of X360, but you only need to see the multiplats to understand...

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

[QUOTE="blackace"] 1st party titles look better then 3rd party PS3 games because Sony provides their 1st party developer with additional tool. support and advance information on the PS3 structure. They don't provide any assistance to 3rd party developers. The 1st batch of PS3 1st party games did look better then the XBox 360, but the 360''s 1st party games have easily caught up in graphical looks and performances. Games like Mass Effect 2, Forza Horizons, Gears of War 3 and Halo 4 easily equal anything on the PS3 now. Cows will never admit this because they are in denial and continue to think their system is more powerful when it really isn't. Developers who have worked on BOTH systems have said this many time. The_Game21x

LOL. I haven't yet gotten to Gears 3, but Forza Horizons especially looks VERY mediocre graphically. Granted it's an open world game, but it doesn't even look as good as Burnout Paradise did on PS3 and maybe not even better than Midnight Club - and I should know because I've played both within the last couple of months (platinum in Burnout on PS3 and 1000 on Forza Horizon on 360). I liked the idea of an open world Forza/Gran Turismo game... but they dropped the ball on this one a little bit almost taking too many influences from other games rather than keeping it true to Forza. (even the interfaces in the game look like a clone of Dirt 2/Dirt 3). They especially dropped the ball with the terrible, glitchy, and pointless multiplayer. Good lord.

Halo 4 I found keeps up just fine with the top PS3 exclusives, it would be splitting hairs for me.

What? :?

Forza Horizon is nowhere near mediocre by console standards.

It doesn't look terrible, but the world is barren and low res/detail. Compare to something like Midnight Club L.A which came out YEARS ago? Horizon has the better car models and interior views which not all open world racers have (leveraged from Forza 4 I'm sure), but the game world was awful. The multiplayer was also an absolute joke, compared to Burnout Paradise and Dirt which are FANTASTIC online. I believe the only multiplayer racer I've played this gen with a worse online is Midnight Club on PS3 - which basically didn't work at all for me. Forza Horizons "worked", but the racing was glitchy and not smooth like those other games, the "party modes" absolutely suck, and basically all the playlists are worthless in general.

Now the game was still very fun for single player, but I'm glad I only paid $14.99 for it on black friday.:)

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

LOL. I haven't yet gotten to Gears 3, but Forza Horizons especially looks VERY mediocre graphically. Granted it's an open world game, but it doesn't even look as good as Burnout Paradise did on PS3 and maybe not even better than Midnight Club - and I should know because I've played both within the last couple of months (platinum in Burnout on PS3 and 1000 on Forza Horizon on 360). I liked the idea of an open world Forza/Gran Turismo game... but they dropped the ball on this one a little bit almost taking too many influences from other games rather than keeping it true to Forza. (even the interfaces in the game look like a clone of Dirt 2/Dirt 3). They especially dropped the ball with the terrible, glitchy, and pointless multiplayer. Good lord.

Halo 4 I found keeps up just fine with the top PS3 exclusives, it would be splitting hairs for me.

2Chalupas

What? :?

Forza Horizon is nowhere near mediocre by console standards.

It doesn't look terrible, but the world is barren and low res/detail. Compare to something like Midnight Club L.A which came out YEARS ago? Horizon has the better car models and interior views which not all open world racers have (leveraged from Forza 4 I'm sure), but the game world was awful. The multiplayer was also an absolute joke, compared to Burnout Paradise and Dirt which are FANTASTIC online. I believe the only multiplayer racer I've played this gen with a worse online is Midnight Club on PS3 - which basically didn't work at all for me. Forza Horizons "worked", but the racing was glitchy and not smooth like those other games, the "party modes" absolutely suck, and basically all the playlists are worthless in general.

Now the game was still very fun for single player, but I'm glad I only paid $14.99 for it on black friday.:)

Meh. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because I felt (and a heck of a lot of people agree) that Forza Horizon is a very good looking game as far as racing games are concerned, open world or not.

That's NOT A FACT, it's an opinion. Sony has lied to their fans more times then I can count. There are actually sites out there that list the many lies that Sony has sold their fans. It's pretty funny actually. The PS3 doesn't have better devs, they have MORE devs. The last 5-6 exclusives that were released for the PS3 this year pretty much moves that. All Flops. blackace

I wouldn't say they're better, they just have different priorities (IE visual fidelity).

The_Game21x

thats not a fact, PS3 dev's were just focused on something different, 360 dev's were willing to compromise video quality for larger areas or more effects here and there.savagetwinkie

Hm, you guys are correct to be fair (how many times have someone uttered these words at System Wars? :lol: )

I'll rephrase:

I believe Sony's 1st party contingent overall outdoes Microsoft's. Reasons are probably because Sony, seemingly or even evidently, are far more supportive of their 1st party studios than Microsoft are. Microsoft have scaled down on their 1st party studios to the point of ridiculum. There's a reason lemkids are crying out for new IPs that are exclusive to 360 and perhaps take advantage of the hardware in ways that the Sony counterparts do.

The 1st party Sony devs aren't necessarily more talented or anything of the sort, however I believe the entire contingent is better in terms of output (probably a result of more developers in terms of numbers), overall quality in their games and visual fidelity of said games (which can be attributed to money, resources, yada, yada, provided for by Sony).

I think it's fair to say that in terms of first party support by the respective companies, Sony >>> Microsoft; I feel the latter have been pathetic this gen in that regard. They've been heavily reliant on 3rd party studios instead.

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Mystery_Writer

Your analysis is spot on.

hardware performance> games

that said , i prefer the xbox360 and wiis library of games better then ps3 , and wii u is off to a similar start as wii and 360 so i m liking it to

Hm, you guys are correct to be fair (how many times have someone uttered these words at System Wars? :lol: )

I'll rephrase:

I believe Sony's 1st party contingent overall outdoes Microsoft's. Reasons are probably because Sony, seemingly or even evidently, are far more supportive of their 1st party studios than Microsoft are. Microsoft have scaled down on their 1st party studios to the point of ridiculum. There's a reason lemkids are crying out for new IPs that are exclusive to 360 and perhaps take advantage of the hardware in ways that the Sony counterparts do.

The 1st party Sony devs aren't necessarily more talented or anything of the sort, however I believe the entire contingent is better in terms of output (probably a result of more developers in terms of numbers), overall quality in their games and visual fidelity of said games (which can be attributed to money, resources, yada, yada, provided for by Sony).

I think it's fair to say that in terms of first party support by the respective companies, Sony >>> Microsoft; I feel the latter have been pathetic this gen in that regard. They've been heavily reliant on 3rd party studios instead.

ToScA-

And I would agree with you.

It's just a shame (from a gamer's perspective) that Microsoft's over-reliance on third parties to sell their system worked as well as it has. That being said though, with the quality of third party games being as they are, I haven't really minded.

[QUOTE="ToScA-"]

Hm, you guys are correct to be fair (how many times have someone uttered these words at System Wars? :lol: )

I'll rephrase:

I believe Sony's 1st party contingent overall outdoes Microsoft's. Reasons are probably because Sony, seemingly or even evidently, are far more supportive of their 1st party studios than Microsoft are. Microsoft have scaled down on their 1st party studios to the point of ridiculum. There's a reason lemkids are crying out for new IPs that are exclusive to 360 and perhaps take advantage of the hardware in ways that the Sony counterparts do.

The 1st party Sony devs aren't necessarily more talented or anything of the sort, however I believe the entire contingent is better in terms of output (probably a result of more developers in terms of numbers), overall quality in their games and visual fidelity of said games (which can be attributed to money, resources, yada, yada, provided for by Sony).

I think it's fair to say that in terms of first party support by the respective companies, Sony >>> Microsoft; I feel the latter have been pathetic this gen in that regard. They've been heavily reliant on 3rd party studios instead.

The_Game21x

And I would agree with you.

It's just a shame (from a gamer's perspective) that Microsoft's over-reliance on third parties to sell their system worked as well as it has. That being said though, with the quality of third party games being as they are, I haven't really minded.

As an owner of a gaming PC there has been very little incentive for me to purchase a 360 since so many of the top-tier games on the console are availible on PC. I think the console needs more exclusives to help define the console and set it apart from the competition. The console would also benefit from having more developers that had the time and resources - backed by Microsoft - to fully exploit the console and what it has got under the hood. Much like what has been going on in the Sony camp for years now.

I'm hoping Microsoft does things differently next generation. But my hopes are fairly subdued because, quite frankly, Microsoft's formula this gen has proved to be very successful. Xbox 360s are selling like hot cakes and Microsoft are making beaucoup bucks in the process. Why would they suddenly pool their resources into new 1st party developers?

Things did look good initially early on in the generation. A lot of fresh and interesting new IPs aside from the Halos, Gears games, Forzas and Fables. There was Kameo, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Too Human. Some of thesegames fell flat on their faces (i.e. Too Human), but hey, you've got to start somewhere! I enjoyed those exclusive outputtings and wanted more of that. But the frequency of these types of outputtings sort of faded.

Many of the games above aren't really 1st party titles, but they were financially backed by and published by Microsoft, rendering them 2nd party titles (similar to Gears of War).

Ah well, time will tell.

EDIT:

All of this is also reflected in the fact that the best looking and technically astute 360 games are, naturally, its 1st party titles.

The very same is true for PS3. But since Sony have more and better supported studios at hand.......

At least the PS3 didn't RROD and scratched discs all the time.kuraimen

RROD doesn't exist or barely exists on newer 360 models.

Once touted to have 2x the performance of X360, PS3 always left much to be desired throughout this gen.

Exhausted all the excuses, the benefit of the doubts, and the grasping at straws its devotees kept tirelessly supplying to keep its performance perception set by Ken Kuturagi, yet on almost every multiplat release, X360 brought the PS3 architecture to its knees.

From buggy, to unplayable for days, to slightly underperforming, those once high PS3 architecture expectations fell far short from delivering the promised experience.

But then again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is indeed an honest argument that proves my conclusions wrong. So I ask you SW, what do you think, which console architecture this gen should be crowned the most powerful?

Mystery_Writer

At least the PS3 didn't RROD and scratched discs all the time.kuraimen

1st party titles look better then 3rd party PS3 games because Sony provides their 1st party developer with additional tool. support and advance information on the PS3 structure. They don't provide any assistance to 3rd party developers. The 1st batch of PS3 1st party games did look better then the XBox 360, but the 360''s 1st party games have easily caught up in graphical looks and performances. Games like Mass Effect 2, Forza Horizons, Gears of War 3 and Halo 4 easily equal anything on the PS3 now. Cows will never admit this because they are in denial and continue to think their system is more powerful when it really isn't. Developers who have worked on BOTH systems have said this many time. blackace

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]At least the PS3 didn't RROD and scratched discs all the time.ToScA-

He had a touch? :?