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

they perform so closely that its 'stupid' arguing which is better...

the ps3 always seemed more powerful if given the proper attention, however it's ease of use was deffinetely it's biggest flaw.

I think the guy that made ninja Gaiden said something on this as well.

the ps3 always seemed more powerful if given the proper attention, however it's ease of use was deffinetely it's biggest flaw.

I think the guy that made ninja Gaiden said something on this as well.

ReadingRainbow4

Another thread ruined.

Another thread ruined.

super600

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

jimmypsn

2000 ruled no dumbass forums thankstome

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?

[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.

Intel 486DX includes a FPU (floating point unit), but it wasn't enough for 3D.

A GPU contains more than just math co-processor arrays e.g. Intel Larrabee vs AMD Radeon HD 5870 or NVIDIA Geforce GTX 480.

Intel Larrabee was dead on arrival when it comes to 3D i.e. software emulation for the GPU's fix function features just reduces the available stream processor resources. AMD experimented with software MSAA with Radeon HD 2900 and it was murdered by NVIDIA Geforce 8800.

When a graphics function can done repeatedly, it's cheaper/faster to allocate a fix hardware instead of wasting programmable math-processors on it.

AMD GCN includes "3D Accelerator" hardware.

Example of GPU's programmable math coprocessor cluster.

You can't just kitbash together some math-processors into an array and have leading edge GPU design.

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[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.ronvalencia

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.

Intel 486DX includes a FPU (floating point unit), but it wasn't enough for 3D.

486 ran 3D games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, ect. fine.

PC games were running in software mode back then.

It ran out of "gas" when fully 3D games like Quake and Tomb Raider came out.

You needed a Pentium to run those.

But even a Pentium was not enough for higher resolutions so "3D accelerators" like 3dfx Voodoo came into play.

Ever since performance in games was mostly determined by what "3D accelerator" you had.

I think future graphics cards will feature CPU functionality and be "self-sufficient", so you won't need a good CPU or lots of RAM to run games on them well.

And CPUs will continue the path of "APUs", that is general processors that will also offer media and graphics/game acceleration.

PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatsthemajormayor

How is "quality" defined?

MC? GS? IGN? Yourself?

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatslundy86_4

How is "quality" defined?

MC? GS? IGN? Yourself?

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.

GamerwillzPS

PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatsthemajormayor

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.

PAL360

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatslocopatho

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatsthemajormayor

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatsthemajormayor

Skyrim was vastly superiorthemajormayor

Hitting 0 fps just made for the perfect picture.

Both consoles seemed rushed and failed to live up to my expectations.

360 with the INFERIOR CPU and constant RROD's.

PS3 with the INFERIOR GPU and lack of ram.

360 is impressive thanks to its GPU that was ahead of its time, PS3 is a bit more powerful, therefore if someone takes the time to develop directly for its weird architecture, the results are noticably better than the best 360 can pull off. On the other hand because the architecture is so weird, if not enough effort is put into PS3 development, games developed on it usually perform a bit worse than 360 equivalents.

Both produce amazing looking games. You should be arguing the software lineup, not the visuals.

Fail rate on 360 is very high ....... truth hurtshippiesanta

How high? Give us a ballpark figure.

I'm not sure how this impacts the hardware game performance, either.

Fail rate on 360 is very high ....... truth hurtshippiesanta

[QUOTE="hippiesanta"]Fail rate on 360 is very high ....... truth hurtsPlagueless

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

jimmypsn

You haven't been paying attention. There are several stereoscopic games for the PS3 (120FPS) and 4D was in the launch title Motorstorm.

Well, RSX, its lower RAM, and the absence of much Edram did a lot of damage to it.

Subjectively though, when it did things great, it did them GREAT. When it did things bad, it did them BADLY.

Xbox has been more consistent but we have yet to see anything aside from Halo 4 that looked better than Uncharted imo. Other games however... yeah not always on top.

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. :(

KarateeeChop

The PS3 has either equaled or beat the 360 in pretty much every major multiplat this year, RE6,Hitman:A , FC3, AC3 are either equal or better on PS3. The 360 had success early on due to crappy ports but the PS3 beat it when it came to exclusives and still does.

.nope ps3 is the best console this gen. It's the most powerful bester than the xbox imho_SWAG_

Dat grammar...

[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="locopatho"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]PS3 wins or ties all the quality multiplatsthemajormayor

Yea, pretty much all console games 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...

nameless12345

Oh wow. I know I shouldn't be surprised seeing as this is SW and all.... but really? There are actually that many idiots on this board that voted for the PS3? Do you guys that voted PS3 even understand the question? Or did you just read it as "which console do you prefer"?