This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Caseytappy"]im afraid thats not how it works casey. its pretty much all but confirmed the PS4 > 720.My console rumor is better than your console rumor !
PinnacleGamingP
Lol. "all but confirmed". Confirmed is all that matters. If it's "all but confirmed", it means absolutely nothing.
how are you gonna play Ni No Kuni Pal? oh wait thats right pal doesnt have a PS3 guys he cant play ni no kuni :lol:Going by previous gens, both will be pretty similar. Xbox 3 may probably be better designed for games, though.
PAL360
[QUOTE="PAL360"]how are you gonna play Ni No Kuni Pal? oh wait thats right pal doesnt have a PS3 guys he cant play ni no kuni :lol:Going by previous gens, both will be pretty similar. Xbox 3 may probably be better designed for games, though.
PinnacleGamingP
I won't, unfortunatly. Not that i like JRPGs, but the game looks beautiful! Well, while i don't need a PS3, at least i praise it's good exclusives :)
It must be sad to be a blind fanboy/brand hater like you, buddy.
[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"][QUOTE="PAL360"]
Going by previous gens, both will be pretty similar. Xbox 3 may probably be better designed for games, though.
how are you gonna play Ni No Kuni Pal? oh wait thats right pal doesnt have a PS3 guys he cant play ni no kuni :lol:I won't, unfortunatly. Not that i like JRPGs, but the game looks beautiful! Well, while i don't need a PS3, at least i praise it's good exclusives :)
It must be sad to be a blind fanboy/brand hater like you, buddy.
pals mad he cant play ni no kuni :lol:The xbox came 20 months after the PS2 was launch not 1 year,it was almost 2 reason for the difference. Because sony focus on media rather than gaming when building the PS3,i tell you this if the PS3 would have been DVD like the xbox 360,the PS3 would outdo the xbox 360 quite easy.. In fact if we translate investment into power the PS3 would have slaughter the 360,the xbox 360 cost MS like $475 to make,the loss was $125 dollar per console on launch,the PS3 cost more than $800 dollars to manufacture and sony loss much more. If sony would have invested blu-ray money on GPU power the PS3 would have ended with a 7900GTX GPU + Cell that would what simple beaten the crap out of the 360.I think they will be very similar in performance.
But if I had to pick I would say the 720 has a bigger chance of coming out more powerful.
Just think about Microsoft's last two consoles.
The Xbox was much more powerful than the PS2 but it did come out a year later.
The Xbox 360 is very similar in performance to the PS3 yet it came out a year earlier.
RyviusARC
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]The xbox came 20 months after the PS2 was launch not 1 year,it was almost 2 reason for the difference. Because sony focus on media rather than gaming when building the PS3,i tell you this if the PS3 would have been DVD like the xbox 360,the PS3 would outdo the xbox 360 quite easy.. In fact if we translate investment into power the PS3 would have slaughter the 360,the xbox 360 cost MS like $475 to make,the loss was $125 dollar per console on launch,the PS3 cost more than $800 dollars to manufacture and sony loss much more. If sony would have invested blu-ray money on GPU power the PS3 would have ended with a 7900GTX GPU + Cell that would what simple beaten the crap out of the 360. The only reason they took the risk to lose all that money on each PS3 was because it had clear benefits outside of gaming, ie winning the format war. They wouldn't have invested that money if it wasn't for a good reason, so I don't see why you're going into all this stuff about ifs.I think they will be very similar in performance.
But if I had to pick I would say the 720 has a bigger chance of coming out more powerful.
Just think about Microsoft's last two consoles.
The Xbox was much more powerful than the PS2 but it did come out a year later.
The Xbox 360 is very similar in performance to the PS3 yet it came out a year earlier.
tormentos
[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]The xbox came 20 months after the PS2 was launch not 1 year,it was almost 2 reason for the difference. Because sony focus on media rather than gaming when building the PS3,i tell you this if the PS3 would have been DVD like the xbox 360,the PS3 would outdo the xbox 360 quite easy.. In fact if we translate investment into power the PS3 would have slaughter the 360,the xbox 360 cost MS like $475 to make,the loss was $125 dollar per console on launch,the PS3 cost more than $800 dollars to manufacture and sony loss much more. If sony would have invested blu-ray money on GPU power the PS3 would have ended with a 7900GTX GPU + Cell that would what simple beaten the crap out of the 360.I think they will be very similar in performance.
But if I had to pick I would say the 720 has a bigger chance of coming out more powerful.
Just think about Microsoft's last two consoles.
The Xbox was much more powerful than the PS2 but it did come out a year later.
The Xbox 360 is very similar in performance to the PS3 yet it came out a year earlier.
tormentos
GeForce 7900 GTX is clocked at 650Mhz with 24 PS and 8 VS units which is a minor increase in shader power compared to 550 Mhz RSX with 24 PS and 8 VS.
ATI Radeon X1800 XT can just beat GeForce 7900 GTX in shader heavy game engines e.g. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-2008-q3/Assassins-Creed-v1.02,735.html
ATI Radeon X1800 XT 512 MB = 23 fps
Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX 512 MB = 22.60 fps
ATI Radeon X1800 XT has 120 GFLOPs from it's fragment shaders which is half of Xeno's 240 GFLOPs. ATI Radeon X1800 XT is weaker than Radeon X1950 or Radeon X1900 AIW (Jan 2006).
From Sony's whitepaper, CELL's 5 SPUs acts like 7800 GTX for deferred shading (pixel shader) i.e. the closest PC setup would be two Nvidia Geforce 7900 GT in SLI mode which rivals a single ATI Radeon X1900 GT 256 MB.
For Crysis 2, you would need Radeon X1950 or Radeon X1900 AIW to rival Xbox 360.
There's a reason why NVIDIA didn't glue two Geforce 7900 together and call it Geforce 8800. NVIDIA instead dumps G7X and designed a better ATI Xenos i.e. NVIDIA G80.
PS3's money could have paid for mid-high-range Geforce 8 e.g. Geforce 8800 GS (105 Watts, 96 CUDA processors, 192 bit bus). Geforce 8800 based design was on time for PS3's launch. Just need to send $$$$$$$$ to NVIDIA's way.
With PS3's budget, Sony could have IBM PPE X3 + NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GS based Xbox 360 like solution i.e. 72 bit XDR + 128 bit GDDR3 based PCB could be exchanged for 192 bit GDDR3 unified memory PCB. It's basically an upgraded Xbox 360. This path would used for PS4 i.e. a GpGPU bias games console.
Do you think PS3 with IBM PPE X3 + NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GS combo would be a nicer setup?
The xbox came 20 months after the PS2 was launch not 1 year,it was almost 2 reason for the difference. Because sony focus on media rather than gaming when building the PS3,i tell you this if the PS3 would have been DVD like the xbox 360,the PS3 would outdo the xbox 360 quite easy.. In fact if we translate investment into power the PS3 would have slaughter the 360,the xbox 360 cost MS like $475 to make,the loss was $125 dollar per console on launch,the PS3 cost more than $800 dollars to manufacture and sony loss much more. If sony would have invested blu-ray money on GPU power the PS3 would have ended with a 7900GTX GPU + Cell that would what simple beaten the crap out of the 360.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"]
I think they will be very similar in performance.
But if I had to pick I would say the 720 has a bigger chance of coming out more powerful.
Just think about Microsoft's last two consoles.
The Xbox was much more powerful than the PS2 but it did come out a year later.
The Xbox 360 is very similar in performance to the PS3 yet it came out a year earlier.
ronvalencia
GeForce 7900 GTX is clocked at 650Mhz with 24 PS and 8 VS units which is a minor increase in shader power compared to 550 Mhz RSX with 24 PS and 8 VS.
ATI Radeon X1800 XT can just beat GeForce 7900 GTX in shader heavy game engines e.g. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-2008-q3/Assassins-Creed-v1.02,735.html
ATI Radeon X1800 XT 512 MB = 23 fps
Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX 512 MB = 22.60 fps
ATI Radeon X1800 XT has 120 GFLOPs from it's fragment shaders which is half of Xeno's 240 GFLOPs. ATI Radeon X1800 XT is weaker than Radeon X1950 or Radeon X1900 AIW (Jan 2006).
From Sony's whitepaper, CELL's 5 SPUs acts like 7800 GTX for deferred shading (pixel shader) i.e. the closest PC setup would be two Nvidia Geforce 7900 GT in SLI mode which rivals a single ATI Radeon X1900 GT 256 MB.
For Crysis 2, you would need Radeon X1950 or Radeon X1900 AIW to rival Xbox 360.
There's a reason why NVIDIA didn't glue two Geforce 7900 together and call it Geforce 8800. NVIDIA instead dumped G7X and designed a better ATI Xenos i.e. NVIDIA G80.
PS3's money could have paid for mid-high-range Geforce 8 e.g. Geforce 8800 GS (105 Watts, 96 CUDA processors, 192 bit bus). Geforce 8800 based design was on time for PS3's launch.
With PS3's budget, Sony could have IBM PPE X3 + NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GS based Xbox 360 like solution i.e. 72 bit XDR + 128 bit GDDR3 based PCB could be exchanged for 192 bit GDDR3 unified memory PCB. It's basically an upgraded Xbox 360. This path would used for PS4 i.e. GpGPU bias game console.
Stop your AMD sucking... ""Oblivion looks better on a high-end PC than on the Xbox 360. Note the additional foliage visible in the background. We matched up resolutions for screenshot comparison purposes here, but a high-end PC with an AMD Athlon FX-60 CPU and GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card can enable all the settings and take resolutions up to 1600x1200 or more and still maintain smooth frame rates. We noticed that the Xbox 360 version had better antialiasing since our PC version couldn't enable HDR and antialiasing at the same time. Of course on the PC version, you can get rid of jaggies the old-fashioned way by jacking up the resolution."" http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion-xbox-360-versus-pc-6147028/?page=2 You argument has been completely destroy,look at the 7900GTX running Oblivion better than the 360,oh and resolution was set to 720p to match the 360,but the 360 version of Oblivion is Sub HD is not 720p native.:lol: Second the 7900GTX even without unified shaders,could go up to 1600X1200 while keeping playable frames.. On console the Xenos may brag about HDR+ AA on PC you don't need AA you just crank the resolution which you could do on Oblivion on PC. Once again if the PS3 had an Gforce 8000 series card it would have beat the crap out of the 360,even a 7900GTX would have done the trick,remember Cell is there and would have help just like it did with the RSX.. By your logic the PS3 should not even have comparable graphics to the 360 because the Xenos >>>>>> RSX,but how come the PS3 has even better looking games.? Oh Yeah Cell is there the CPU that you always want to compare to GPU's.[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tormentos"] The xbox came 20 months after the PS2 was launch not 1 year,it was almost 2 reason for the difference. Because sony focus on media rather than gaming when building the PS3,i tell you this if the PS3 would have been DVD like the xbox 360,the PS3 would outdo the xbox 360 quite easy.. In fact if we translate investment into power the PS3 would have slaughter the 360,the xbox 360 cost MS like $475 to make,the loss was $125 dollar per console on launch,the PS3 cost more than $800 dollars to manufacture and sony loss much more. If sony would have invested blu-ray money on GPU power the PS3 would have ended with a 7900GTX GPU + Cell that would what simple beaten the crap out of the 360.tormentos
GeForce 7900 GTX is clocked at 650Mhz with 24 PS and 8 VS units which is a minor increase in shader power compared to 550 Mhz RSX with 24 PS and 8 VS.
ATI Radeon X1800 XT can just beat GeForce 7900 GTX in shader heavy game engines e.g. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-2008-q3/Assassins-Creed-v1.02,735.html
ATI Radeon X1800 XT 512 MB = 23 fps
Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX 512 MB = 22.60 fps
ATI Radeon X1800 XT has 120 GFLOPs from it's fragment shaders which is half of Xeno's 240 GFLOPs. ATI Radeon X1800 XT is weaker than Radeon X1950 or Radeon X1900 AIW (Jan 2006).
From Sony's whitepaper, CELL's 5 SPUs acts like 7800 GTX for deferred shading (pixel shader) i.e. the closest PC setup would be two Nvidia Geforce 7900 GT in SLI mode which rivals a single ATI Radeon X1900 GT 256 MB.
For Crysis 2, you would need Radeon X1950 or Radeon X1900 AIW to rival Xbox 360.
There's a reason why NVIDIA didn't glue two Geforce 7900 together and call it Geforce 8800. NVIDIA instead dumped G7X and designed a better ATI Xenos i.e. NVIDIA G80.
PS3's money could have paid for mid-high-range Geforce 8 e.g. Geforce 8800 GS (105 Watts, 96 CUDA processors, 192 bit bus). Geforce 8800 based design was on time for PS3's launch.
With PS3's budget, Sony could have IBM PPE X3 + NVIDIA Geforce 8800 GS based Xbox 360 like solution i.e. 72 bit XDR + 128 bit GDDR3 based PCB could be exchanged for 192 bit GDDR3 unified memory PCB. It's basically an upgraded Xbox 360. This path would used for PS4 i.e. GpGPU bias game console.
Stop your AMD sucking... ""Oblivion looks better on a high-end PC than on the Xbox 360. Note the additional foliage visible in the background. We matched up resolutions for screenshot comparison purposes here, but a high-end PC with an AMD Athlon FX-60 CPU and GeForce 7900 GTX graphics card can enable all the settings and take resolutions up to 1600x1200 or more and still maintain smooth frame rates. We noticed that the Xbox 360 version had better antialiasing since our PC version couldn't enable HDR and antialiasing at the same time. Of course on the PC version, you can get rid of jaggies the old-fashioned way by jacking up the resolution."" http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion-xbox-360-versus-pc-6147028/?page=2 You argument has been completely destroy,look at the 7900GTX running Oblivion better than the 360,oh and resolution was set to 720p to match the 360,but the 360 version of Oblivion is Sub HD is not 720p native.:lol: Second the 7900GTX even without unified shaders,could go up to 1600X1200 while keeping playable frames.. On console the Xenos may brag about HDR+ AA on PC you don't need AA you just crank the resolution which you could do on Oblivion on PC. Once again if the PS3 had an Gforce 8000 series card it would have beat the crap out of the 360,even a 7900GTX would have done the trick,remember Cell is there and would have help just like it did with the RSX.. By your logic the PS3 should not even have comparable graphics to the 360 because the Xenos >>>>>> RSX,but how come the PS3 has even better looking games.? Oh Yeah Cell is there the CPU that you always want to compare to GPU's.Stop your Sony sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads).
Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era i.e. it's nowhere near Crysis 2's shader program complexity. 1024x600 resolution fits within a single eDRAM tile. Xbox 360 has it's own issues i.e. tiling needs special treatments. Btw, Xbox 360's Fallout 3 (1280x720) and SkyRim (1280x720) says Hi.
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Stop your PS3 sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads). Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era. tormentosNo i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be.
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements? Maybe I should change my sig and repeat IBM's "DSP like" for SPUs statement.
Read http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cmpware1/index.html
Cell/B.E.'s Synergistic Processing Unit (SPU), of which there are eight. The eight SPUs (powerful DSP-like devices that contain four floating-point arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) operating in SIMD fashion)
How many times I should repeat IBM's own statements to Sony PS3 fanboys?
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Stop your PS3 sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads). Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era. tormentosNo i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so.
Xbox 360's Fallout 3 (1280x720) and SkyRim (1280x720) says Hi.
Fallout 3 uses a newer GameBryo engine compared to Oblivion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo
Ridiculous.? What console was more powerful than the PS2 on 2000? First Sony could have made a more powerful console than MS if they cheapen out like MS did with the xbox 360,the xbox 360 only good things are the 512MB of DDR3 by that time expensive and the Xenos,because not even the CPU was all that while been 3 cores. Its uses Cheap DVD,it has no wifi out of the box,the only 2 things there good were the GPU and Ram,and even on Ram sony spent more than MS because not only they had DD3 which was as expensive as the 360 ram,but also had XDR which was even more expensive than DDR3. If sony would have gone all out on GPU and forgot about the whole blu-ray thing the xbox 360 would have been heavily outgunned..tormentos
What's the point of the that? It's too late for the 'ifs'. Sony gave priority to Bluray and saved the format, fair enough. As a consequence, other hardware aspects ended up not so good.
It works for both sides, anyway. The only disadvantage, in terms of hardware, that 360 has compared to PS3, is the CPU. 'IF 360 had a better CPU, PS3 could't even compete'.
No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Stop your PS3 sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads). Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era. ronvalencia
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements?
C'mon Ron, do it for me; go out on that limb and make a bold, without being an once vague prediction, which one do you predict will have the better tech, be the most powahful? :oIf you already stated your prediction and I missed it, I appolagize in advance. :P
No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Stop your PS3 sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads). Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era. ronvalencia
Xbox 360's Fallout 3 (1280x720) and SkyRim (1280x720) says Hi.
Fallout 3 uses a newer GameBryo engine compared to Oblivion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo
Which mean nothing... Like i showed you the 7900GTX was more powerful..No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Stop your PS3 sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads). Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era. ronvalencia
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements? Maybe I should change my sig and repeat IBM's "DSP like" for SPUs statement.
Read http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cmpware1/index.html
Cell/B.E.'s Synergistic Processing Unit (SPU), of which there are eight. The eight SPUs (powerful DSP-like devices that contain four floating-point arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) operating in SIMD fashion)
How many times I should repeat IBM's own statements to Sony PS3 fanboys?
You are a joke of a poster and frustrated ATI suck up. You quoted a person who was been neutral.. You always talking crap of Cell and always comparing it to the Xenos like if Cell was a damn GPU,PS3 developer don't care if they have to use Cell to compensate for the weak RSX,that is what make Cell even better but your denial and ATI fanboysm blind your mind if the xbox 360 had a Nvidia GPU you would not be defending it right now.. Fact is Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon... Uncharted 3 graphics and physics speak louder than specs on paper..[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tormentos"] No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. tormentos
Xbox 360's Fallout 3 (1280x720) and SkyRim (1280x720) says Hi.
Fallout 3 uses a newer GameBryo engine compared to Oblivion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo
Which mean nothing... Like i showed you the 7900GTX was more powerful..
http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/
"You wont get solid 25 fps on minimum setting with 7900 GTX"
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tormentos"] No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be. tormentos
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements? Maybe I should change my sig and repeat IBM's "DSP like" for SPUs statement.
Read http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cmpware1/index.html
Cell/B.E.'s Synergistic Processing Unit (SPU), of which there are eight. The eight SPUs (powerful DSP-like devices that contain four floating-point arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) operating in SIMD fashion)
How many times I should repeat IBM's own statements to Sony PS3 fanboys?
You are a joke of a poster and frustrated ATI suck up. You quoted a person who was been neutral.. You always talking crap of Cell and always comparing it to the Xenos like if Cell was a damn GPU,PS3 developer don't care if they have to use Cell to compensate for the weak RSX,that is what make Cell even better but your denial and ATI fanboysm blind your mind if the xbox 360 had a Nvidia GPU you would not be defending it right now.. Fact is Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon... Uncharted 3 graphics and physics speak louder than specs on paper..You haven't presented any facts. By using Uncharted 3, you haven't negated the artwork subjectivity i.e. hardware benchmarking failure 101.
Again, Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon Sony fanboy claims.
Your "ATI suck up" statement is LOL. My comments was a repeat of 2006/2007 era postings when I used NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT (laptop) and 8600 GTS (desktop PC).
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tormentos"] No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be. tormentos
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements? Maybe I should change my sig and repeat IBM's "DSP like" for SPUs statement.
Read http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cmpware1/index.html
Cell/B.E.'s Synergistic Processing Unit (SPU), of which there are eight. The eight SPUs (powerful DSP-like devices that contain four floating-point arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) operating in SIMD fashion)
How many times I should repeat IBM's own statements to Sony PS3 fanboys?
You are a joke of a poster and frustrated ATI suck up. You quoted a person who was been neutral.. You always talking crap of Cell and always comparing it to the Xenos like if Cell was a damn GPU,PS3 developer don't care if they have to use Cell to compensate for the weak RSX,that is what make Cell even better but your denial and ATI fanboysm blind your mind if the xbox 360 had a Nvidia GPU you would not be defending it right now.. Fact is Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon... Uncharted 3 graphics and physics speak louder than specs on paper..Being neutral is bad?:|
I think the joke's on you.
No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Stop your PS3 sucking... I'm using Sony's own whitepaper on 5 SPUs vs Geforce 7800GTX and deferred shading(pixel shader workloads). Oblivion is NVIDIA TWIMTBP title during DX9 era. ronvalencia
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements? Maybe I should change my sig and repeat IBM's "DSP like" for SPUs statement.
Read http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cmpware1/index.html
Cell/B.E.'s Synergistic Processing Unit (SPU), of which there are eight. The eight SPUs (powerful DSP-like devices that contain four floating-point arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) operating in SIMD fashion)
How many times I should repeat IBM's own statements to Sony PS3 fanboys?
LOL the amount of win and ownage here is off the charts! good job ronvalencia..but cows will ignore this article as a plague :cool:href="http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/">http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/You don't know when to quit do you.? Neither will the 360 version...:lol: In fact the 360 version of Crysis 2 has heavy slow downs that sink into the low 20,has screen tearing,pop in every where and is sub HD as well as it has other graphical glitches.."You wont get solid 25 fps on minimum setting with 7900 GTX"ronvalencia
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tormentos"] No i am not sucking at sony,i am just telling your that your whole argument is wrong is base on paper we all know how the Xenos been way stronger than the RSX work out for MS,both console have been comparable and the best looking games had been tag on the PS3. It doesn't matter if it was DX9 the thing was that it was more powerful than the Xenos and i showed you so. This is what you don't get because you always resort to compare cell head to head vs the Xenos which is a joke.. Sony showed that having the right help is more important that having the more powerful GPU.. Xenos >> RSX. Cell >> Xenon. Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon. Maybe you can't comprehend this because you have an old fashion GPU mentality where you think that everything is done better by the GPU,sony showed how wrong many were,going by GPU alone the PS3 should not even be close to the 360 and you know it,the Xenos is faster and stronger than the RSX would ever be. Tessellation
For PS3 to remain comparable to Xbox 360 with complex shader based games, it would need support from CELL's SPUs e.g. BattleField 3.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=1
Shippy was the chief architect of the power processing unit for the Cell, and overall technical leader and architect for the team that created the Power Architecture-related microprocessors that ended up in both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3904/processing_the_truth_an_interview_.php?page=3
"I'm going to have to answer with an 'it depends,'" laughs Shippy, after a pause. "Again, they're completely different models. So in the PS3, you've got this Cell chip which has massive parallel processing power, the PowerPC core, multiple SPU cores it's got a GPU that is, in the model here, processing more in the Cell chip and less in the GPU. So that's one processing paradigm -- a heterogeneous paradigm."
"With the Xbox 360, you've got more of a traditional multi-core system, and you've got three PowerPC cores, each of them having dual threads -- so you've got six threads running there, at least in the CPU. Six threads in Xbox 360, and eight or nine threads in the PS3 -- but then you've got to factor in the GPU," Shippy explains. "The GPU is highly sophisticated in the Xbox 360."
He concludes: "At the end of the day, when you put them all together, depending on the software, I think they're pretty equal, even though they're completely different processing models."
--------------
Shippy would not support your Cell + RSX >> Xenos + Xenon claims.
Your "I am not sucking at sony" statement is laughable in relation to Shippy's statements.
You are repeating "CELL is just a CPU" again. Should I continue to debunk this stupid POV with IBM's own statements? Maybe I should change my sig and repeat IBM's "DSP like" for SPUs statement.
Read http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cmpware1/index.html
Cell/B.E.'s Synergistic Processing Unit (SPU), of which there are eight. The eight SPUs (powerful DSP-like devices that contain four floating-point arithmetic and logic units (ALUs) operating in SIMD fashion)
How many times I should repeat IBM's own statements to Sony PS3 fanboys?
LOL the amount of win and ownage here is off the charts! good job ronvalencia..but cows will ignore this article as a plague :cool: PS; I have purchased multple Sony products that cost more than Sony PS3 e.g. Sony Bavaria 46 inch HDTV, Sony Vaio VGN-FW45 laptop, Sony Xperia Mini-Pro (old business phone).[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] href="http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/">http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/You don't know when to quit do you.? Neither will the 360 version...:lol: In fact the 360 version of Crysis 2 has heavy slow downs that sink into the low 20,has screen tearing,pop in every where and is sub HD as well as it has other graphical glitches.."You wont get solid 25 fps on minimum setting with 7900 GTX"tormentos
Well, atleast it's not 800x600 resolution.
On Crysis 2's fps issues, "Thankfully these areas don't account for the majority of the gameplay by any stretch of the imagination" http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis2-face-off?page=2
[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] href="http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/">http://www.vg247.com/2011/06/27/crysis-2-dx11-patch-released-detailed/You don't know when to quit do you.? Neither will the 360 version...:lol: In fact the 360 version of Crysis 2 has heavy slow downs that sink into the low 20,has screen tearing,pop in every where and is sub HD as well as it has other graphical glitches.. Well, atleast it's not 800x600 resolution. Instead it has much worse AF"You wont get solid 25 fps on minimum setting with 7900 GTX"ronvalencia
[QUOTE="Tessellation"] LOL the amount of win and ownage here is off the charts! good job ronvalencia..but cows will ignore this article as a plague :cool:tormentosThis come from one of the biggest fanboys this forum has,wait aren't you the one who want to believe that the 720 will have 3 top of the line GPU.? :lol: the kettle calling the pot black never gets old with cows :cool: i don't believe any rumor ;) i just find really ironic when cows say that any article related with the next xbox specs are bullsh!t and dwellers like you try to prove without any source or evidence that ps4 specs rumors are real :cool:
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="tormentos"] You don't know when to quit do you.? Neither will the 360 version...:lol: In fact the 360 version of Crysis 2 has heavy slow downs that sink into the low 20,has screen tearing,pop in every where and is sub HD as well as it has other graphical glitches..themajormayorWell, atleast it's not 800x600 resolution. Instead it has much worse AF
For the most part, AF is a fix function hardware issue.
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Well, atleast it's not 800x600 resolution. tormentosWell maybe if they would have go that low on 360 they would have a achieve a constant 25 FPS..lol
On Crysis 2's fps issues, "Thankfully these areas don't account for the majority of the gameplay by any stretch of the imagination" http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis2-face-off?page=2
No idea. We don't have any official specs and developers are giving us mixed signals. No one truly knows at this point. The hardware is still being designed and redesigned. We'll just have to wait for the official announcements to get a general idea. I think they will be pretty close again just like this generation. The 360 and PS3 are just about even. Each having their own specific pros and cons.What do you predict? based on the available information (rumors, current market trends, corporate direction and financial strength, history, etc.. ) combined with your own conclusions and gut feeling.
Which of the two upcoming consoles you feel is more likely to be the most powerful graphically?
Mystery_Writer
Which mean nothing... Like i showed you the 7900GTX was more powerful..tormentos
@tormentos, I honestly consider your posts as properly researched facts.
What do you mean by "was more powerful"? Did Sony downgrad the RSX over the years, or MS upgraded their xenos? It doesn't make sense.
The answer to which GPU is more powerful should apply to launch models just as it does to today's slim models.
So out of the two, with your understanding to both architectures today, which GPU you believe is more powerful? RSX or Xenos?
This come from one of the biggest fanboys this forum has,wait aren't you the one who want to believe that the 720 will have 3 top of the line GPU.? :lol: the kettle calling the pot black never gets old with cows :cool: i don't believe any rumor ;) i just find really ironic when cows say that any article related with the next xbox specs are bullsh!t and dwellers like you try to prove without any source or evidence that ps4 specs rumors are real :cool: Like i told you a man running 100 miles in 4 days is more credible than a man swimming 500 miles in 15minutes.[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Tessellation"] LOL the amount of win and ownage here is off the charts! good job ronvalencia..but cows will ignore this article as a plague :cool:Tessellation
[QUOTE="tormentos"] Which mean nothing... Like i showed you the 7900GTX was more powerful..Mystery_Writer
Dude @tormentos, I honestly consider your posts as properly researched facts.
What do you mean by "was more powerful"? Did Sony downgrad the RSX over the years, or MS upgraded their xenos? It doesn't make sense.
The answer to which GPU is more powerful should apply to launch models just as it does to today's slim models.
So out of the two, with your understanding to both architectures today, which GPU you believe is more powerful? RSX or Xenos?
The 7900GTX is not the GPU inside the PS3,the RSX has some things of the 7900GTX but with the bandwidth of a 7600... Is like having 100 client waiting for you to open your restaurant but your restaurant can only accommodate 55 clients. The comparison i was talking was about PC vs 360.Even with the RSX getting help from the Cell, the PS3 version of Crysis 2 ran at a lower resolution than the 360 version, and with a consistently lower framerate too..superclockedBlame Crytek for that not the PS3 Killzone 3 has even better visuals,no screen tearing no frames drop or huge pop ins and runs at 720P.
[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]No idea. We don't have any official specs and developers are giving us mixed signals. No one truly knows at this point. The hardware is still being designed and redesigned. We'll just have to wait for the official announcements to get a general idea. I think they will be pretty close again just like this generation. The 360 and PS3 are just about even. Each having their own specific pros and cons. The hardware is final... There are no more changes to be made at this point the components of the consoles are been manufacture as we speak,you don't start to manufacture consoles 2 months from launch or after E3.What do you predict? based on the available information (rumors, current market trends, corporate direction and financial strength, history, etc.. ) combined with your own conclusions and gut feeling.
Which of the two upcoming consoles you feel is more likely to be the most powerful graphically?
blackace
[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"][QUOTE="tormentos"] Which mean nothing... Like i showed you the 7900GTX was more powerful..tormentos
Dude @tormentos, I honestly consider your posts as properly researched facts.
What do you mean by "was more powerful"? Did Sony downgrad the RSX over the years, or MS upgraded their xenos? It doesn't make sense.
The answer to which GPU is more powerful should apply to launch models just as it does to today's slim models.
So out of the two, with your understanding to both architectures today, which GPU you believe is more powerful? RSX or Xenos?
The 7900GTX is not the GPU inside the PS3,the RSX has some things of the 7900GTX but with the bandwidth of a 7600... Is like having 100 client waiting for you to open your restaurant but your restaurant can only accommodate 55 clients. The comparison i was talking was about PC vs 360. oh i see, makes sense now. Which one you believe is more powerful? 7900 GTX or Xenos? or it's difficult to compare the two?[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]No idea. We don't have any official specs and developers are giving us mixed signals. No one truly knows at this point. The hardware is still being designed and redesigned. We'll just have to wait for the official announcements to get a general idea. I think they will be pretty close again just like this generation. The 360 and PS3 are just about even. Each having their own specific pros and cons. The hardware is final... There are no more changes to be made at this point the components of the consoles are been manufacture as we speak,you don't start to manufacture consoles 2 months from launch or after E3.What do you predict? based on the available information (rumors, current market trends, corporate direction and financial strength, history, etc.. ) combined with your own conclusions and gut feeling.
Which of the two upcoming consoles you feel is more likely to be the most powerful graphically?
tormentos
And how can you prove the hardware is final if those are only rumors?
And how can you prove the hardware is final if those are only rumors?TessellationWhat you read in many cases are hints or made up sh**.. But something is for sure you can't manufacture consoles 2 months before launch,the process of making 1 million units is very hard,especially on new custom hardware,which is why most console always face shortages,because of low yields..
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment