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

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"?

sandbox3d

They've never ever written 'Hello world'.

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?

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="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.

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.

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"?

sandbox3d

Xbox 360 is better designed, but it's likely the PS3 is more powerful, it's just not good for the business. No one has the time to make it work.

MS has a unified hardware, with a good OS and development tools. It's designed to make life easier for the developer. All gen it's had consistent performance.

when the dev take the time the ps3 is very capable farcry 3 and assasin creed 3 are great example and since the last patch skyrim is very enjoyable and now bethesda announce the dlc is comming on the pc the same day its clear in my mind it was a deal with microsoft.But yes ps3 architecture is not dev friendly for multiplat with a deadline .

Xbox 360 is better designed, but it's likely the PS3 is more powerful, it's just not good for the business. No one has the time to make it work.

MS has a unified hardware, with a good OS and development tools. It's designed to make life easier for the developer. All gen it's had consistent performance.

HalcyonScarlet

I don't think PS3 is any more capable than 360. Maybe looking at numbers on paper, but clearly not in practice for games.

At their best, buth consoles have been proving to be pretty much on par (Uncharted 3, Halo 4, Forza Horizon, KZ3, Gears 3, GoW3, etc), but 360 has a better average, it's more consistant.

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

Xbox 360 is better designed, but it's likely the PS3 is more powerful, it's just not good for the business. No one has the time to make it work.

MS has a unified hardware, with a good OS and development tools. It's designed to make life easier for the developer. All gen it's had consistent performance.

PAL360

I don't think PS3 is any more capable than 360. Maybe looking at numbers on paper, but clearly not in practice for games.

At their best, buth consoles have been proving to be pretty much on par (Uncharted 3, Halo 4, Forza Horizon, KZ3, Gears 3, GoW3, etc), but 360 has a better average, it's more consistant.

I guess.

Just ask any 3rd party dev worth their salt which system they rather work with and if they have no axe to grind, the answer will be 360. :P

[QUOTE="HalcyonScarlet"]

Xbox 360 is better designed, but it's likely the PS3 is more powerful, it's just not good for the business. No one has the time to make it work.

MS has a unified hardware, with a good OS and development tools. It's designed to make life easier for the developer. All gen it's had consistent performance.

PAL360

I don't think PS3 is any more capable than 360. Maybe looking at numbers on paper, but clearly not in practice for games.

At their best, buth consoles have been proving to be pretty much on par (Uncharted 3, Halo 4, Forza Horizon, KZ3, Gears 3, GoW3, etc), but 360 has a better average, it's more consistant.

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

Agreed , Ylod was more pleasing to the eye although it wiped out most of the 60 Gig launch systems and wasn't backed up by extended warranty like the Xbox .

Sony diceided to just ignore the problem !

WOW The delusions are mind blowing :lol: The 360 came out a year first. FACT. The 360 is easier to dev for. FACT. The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, The PS3 has CONSISTENTLY won best looking game awards EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And the 360 is more consistent? looooooooooooooool :lol: Boy these lems have truly lost all sense of reality.Eddie-Vedder

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]WOW The delusions are mind blowing :lol: The 360 came out a year first. FACT. The 360 is easier to dev for. FACT. The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, The PS3 has CONSISTENTLY won best looking game awards EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And the 360 is more consistent? looooooooooooooool :lol: Boy these lems have truly lost all sense of reality.PAL360

We all know your brainwash is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

well would you look at that.kiddoom93

What?

PS3 hardware architecture was finished about the same time as the 360 but they had to wait for the Blu-Ray drives before they could launch .

They also had yield problems manufacturing the Cell resulting in the sacrifice of one SPE .

[QUOTE="kiddoom93"]well would you look at that.PAL360

What?

the previous guy posted saying the 360 has no best graphic awards and the ps3 wins every year and then halo 4 has just racked up a best graphics award it gave me a wee laugh.kiddoom93

Got it ;)

IDK, TC. Those Uncharted and GoW games sure do look nice...

[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?

The_Game21x

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.

You need your eyes checked if you think either of those games look better than KZ3, UC2/3 and TLOU.

PS4 is clearly better, no RROD, a perfect 10 game and more core exclusives. Thank you Sony. Heil68

I'm jealous. :P

[QUOTE="Heil68"]PS4 is clearly better, no RROD, a perfect 10 game and more core exclusives. Thank you Sony. SecretPolice

I'm jealous. :P

[QUOTE="sandbox3d"]

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"?

psymon100

They've never ever written 'Hello world'.

let the virgin basement dweller sony fanboys believe the ps3 is better...at the end of the day they just look stupid like always :lol:Tessellation

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, delta3074

:

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

[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.NineTailedGoku

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.

You need your eyes checked if you think either of those games look better than KZ3, UC2/3 and TLOU.

A Sony fanboy who disagrees that 360 exclusives can match the PS3's best? What a shock.

Truth be told, the best looking games are on PS3. And i own both consoles.

Truth be told, the best looking games are on PS3. And i own both consoles.

KillzoneSnake

I own all three and say Halo 4 looks the best .

3 > 2 so you opinion is invalid !

[QUOTE="Tessellation"]let the virgin basement dweller sony fanboys believe the ps3 is better...at the end of the day they just look stupid like always :lol:p4s2p0

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, Gue1

:

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]Bulls****, 'Gears of War 2 won several awards following its presentation at E3 2008. IGN gave it the awards Overall Best Shooting Game and Overall Best Graphics Technology of E3 2008.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gears_of_War_2 'The Visual Effects Society awarded Bungie the "Best Real Time Visuals in a Video Game" for Halo 3.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3 You are a complete idot anyway because Powwer=/=Architecture, we all know the Ps3 is marginally more powerful but it's architecture is such that it can never consistently reach that power (GOW 3's inconsistancys being a classic example) where as the 360 has an architecture that allows it to make full use of the hardware Provided ,The Ps3 having 18MB less useable RAM than the 360 and the Lack of Edram in the Ps3 is a bigger disadvantage, especially to third party developers, Bottom line, The Ps3 has very powerful hardware but it's bottle-necked by it's own Architecture, Overbloated OS with less useable RAM, an Awesome CPU, or it would be if it wasn't Carrying most of the RSX's workload all the time and a lack of EDram,. which gives the 360 a massive 256GB/sec system bandwidth advantage.delta3074

:

Don't mind him, he's allergic to facts and logical arguments.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]WOW The delusions are mind blowing :lol: The 360 came out a year first. FACT. The 360 is easier to dev for. FACT. The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, The PS3 has CONSISTENTLY won best looking game awards EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And the 360 is more consistent? looooooooooooooool :lol: Boy these lems have truly lost all sense of reality.PAL360

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]WOW The delusions are mind blowing :lol: The 360 came out a year first. FACT. The 360 is easier to dev for. FACT. The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, The PS3 has CONSISTENTLY won best looking game awards EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And the 360 is more consistent? looooooooooooooool :lol: Boy these lems have truly lost all sense of reality.themajormayor

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

By factually proving Eddie wrong? Think what you will of the VGA's, but Eddie's statement was wildly innaccurate.

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]WOW The delusions are mind blowing :lol: The 360 came out a year first. FACT. The 360 is easier to dev for. FACT. The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, The PS3 has CONSISTENTLY won best looking game awards EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And the 360 is more consistent? looooooooooooooool :lol: Boy these lems have truly lost all sense of reality.themajormayor

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

[QUOTE="PAL360"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]WOW The delusions are mind blowing :lol: The 360 came out a year first. FACT. The 360 is easier to dev for. FACT. The 360 has NEVER won any graphics awards, The PS3 has CONSISTENTLY won best looking game awards EVERY SINGLE YEAR. And the 360 is more consistent? looooooooooooooool :lol: Boy these lems have truly lost all sense of reality.themajormayor

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

lundy86_4

By factually proving Eddie wrong? Think what you will of the VGA's, but Eddie's statement was wildly innaccurate.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="PAL360"]

We all know your brain wash state is irreversible, so i'll not lose much of my time with you. Just leave this here...

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2012-nominees/voting/best-graphics

delta3074

Cows need a hug. That's the only explanation i see for their constant lack of logic :o

2012 is year of the PS3 just wait.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"] Wow talk about self ownagethemajormayor

By factually proving Eddie wrong? Think what you will of the VGA's, but Eddie's statement was wildly innaccurate.

I'm not sure of their requirements for the category. It could have been an exception due to the great art.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

By factually proving Eddie wrong? Think what you will of the VGA's, but Eddie's statement was wildly innaccurate.

lundy86_4

I'm not sure of their requirements for the category. It could have been an exception due to the great art.

MS definitely won by going with hardware that was similar to the PC. Sony took a big gamble going for obscure hardware that was hard to develop for, and it bit them in the ass this generation. I doubt they will try that same move on the next gen machine.

Its amazing that these consoles have been out for 5 or 6 years and yet still from day 1 we have the same arguments. Its hard to judge who can produce the best graphics unless there was a single developer who made the same game taliored to both systems to prove which can produce the best visuals. I honestly believe the 360 can nudge out the PS3, however when you are infront of your direct competition, there is zero need to throw money at your developers to produce the "next big thing", microsoft brough back halo 4 just to keep things ticking over until the next gen. Sony needs decent exclusives because it falls behind in the third party scene and most importantly in COD. Crysis 2 is apperently graphics king this gen which is a multiplat. After that people say gears of war 3 is the 360s best looking exclusive, but that is running on a multiplat engine which means again its not a taliored made game. Think about the monetary investment that sony made into gt5 and killzone 2, it dwarfs what xbox developers recieve.o0squishy0o

Good points!