Xbox 360 has a better Graphics Processing unit than the ps3?

This is a sticky subject for a lot of fanboys. A very common argument in most flame wars is that the Playstation 3 simply "has better graphics". I'm not sure where that argument came from; Sony obviously did a good job of marketing the system. However, the argument is entirely false. The Xenos GPU on the XBOX 360 is superior the RSX on the PS3. This is one thing that didn't change in the past year.Karstux

dude sony is so cheap, even nintendo has a better ad campaing

PS3 = Better CPU

360 = Better GPU

And yet its games look better(GT5 P, Uncharted, Ratchet) and even MGS4...coldsteel321

Good thing It isn't the GPU along responsible for making the output we see on the TV.

What about the CPU TC???

The proof is in the pudding, and nobody cares if the Xenos has better specs on paper if it doesn't show in the results.

Gears (November 06?) is still easily the best-looking 360 game out there. The PS3 has surpassed it several times since then with it's exclusives (Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, arguably Ratchet & Clank), but the 360 hasn't produced anything to rival any of them. Mass Effect looked nice, sans the technical issues.

TEH 360 HAS TEH MORE POWER... so when are we going to see it? Is this a, dare I say it, just wait situation? I thought it was the PS3 that was mocked for all of it's untapped POWAH.

yes but now those gpus in each system are not good at all! a card relevent to those say a 7950gtx which out performs them even is only 80 bucks! so don't get impressed with console visuals unless its the art style like with halo and some rpgs.LibertySaint

You did not just say you liked Halo for the art style. :lol:

And yet its games look better(GT5 P, Uncharted, Ratchet) and even MGS4...coldsteel321

in that list uncharted is the only one that comes close.

And yet its games look better(GT5 P, Uncharted, Ratchet) and even MGS4...coldsteel321

Thats just an opinion. Its pathetic that you bring it up.

Anyway, yes the xbox 360 does have a more powerful GPU. The GPU alone is the bottleneck on any computer (or console), so the xbox 360 will produce better graphics.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]yes but now those gpus in each system are not good at all! a card relevent to those say a 7950gtx which out performs them even is only 80 bucks! so don't get impressed with console visuals unless its the art style like with halo and some rpgs.excelR83

You did not just say you liked Halo for the art style. :lol:

You can't say this is the height of realism, can you?

The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.thrones

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

PS3 = Better CPU

360 = Better GPU

BioShockOwnz

Thats actually not entirely true. The xbox 360 has 3 general purpose CPUs, while the PS3 has one core. The Cell is a supercomputer chip, but it isn't really practical for gaming. Developers will take 3 general cores over the cell anyday.

[QUOTE="thrones"]The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.L1qu1dSword

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

I'm glad to see that at least someone has a clue about what he's talking about.

The Xenon is an incredibly powerful tri-core processor, the cell has one core adn 8 SPE's. The xenon is just better for gaming. General purpose cores are more useful to developers than 8 SPE's.

[QUOTE="thrones"]The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.L1qu1dSword

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

You can't say this is the height of realism, can you?

ART STYLE vs REALISM are completely different topics. Do you INTENTIONALLY miss the point with every reply? I would hate to be on an archery range with you.

You can't say this is the height of realism, can you?

L1qu1dSword

ART STYLE vs REALISM are completely different topics. Do you INTENTIONALLY miss the point with every reply? I would hate to be on an archery range with you.

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="thrones"]The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.thrones

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

So I get it now! The PS3 is a better gaming machine because it's processor NOT optimal for gaming. Great. You know what I LOVE about you Thrones is how easy you make it for me.

yes 360 has better gpu BUT the cell on ps3 can help the gpu of the ps3

and in the cell there are spu , those thing are like severals gpu in more than the main gpu

so cell + gpu ps3 >>>>>>> 360

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="thrones"]The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.L1qu1dSword

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

So I get it now! The PS3 is a better gaming machine because it's processor NOT optimal for gaming. Great. You know what I LOVE about you Thrones is how easy you make it for me.

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"][QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="thrones"]The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.thrones

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

So I get it now! The PS3 is a better gaming machine because it's processor NOT optimal for gaming. Great. You know what I LOVE about you Thrones is how easy you make it for me.

oh. well in that case im sorry. i was just going by your sig, avatar and posting history in thinking you were a cow. my bad.

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"][QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

[QUOTE="thrones"]The Xenos is definitely better than the RSX, however the cell broadband processor can also uptake alot of graphical processing power unlike the Xenon which is a, more or less, standard processor.L1qu1dSword

If you conside a chip with three seperate cores running at 3.2 GHZ standard I guess. The cell btw has one.

So I get it now! The PS3 is a better gaming machine because it's processor NOT optimal for gaming. Great. You know what I LOVE about you Thrones is how easy you make it for me.

oh. well in that case im sorry. i was just going by your sig, avatar and posting history in thinking you were a cow. my bad.

yes 360 has better gpu BUT the cell on ps3 can help the gpu of the ps3

and in the cell there are spu , those thing are like severals gpu in more than the main gpu

so cell + gpu ps3 >>>>>>> 360

subalachi

Why do people still buy into Sony propaganda. The Cell cannot perform GPU functions on any meaningful level.

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]yes but now those gpus in each system are not good at all! a card relevent to those say a 7950gtx which out performs them even is only 80 bucks! so don't get impressed with console visuals unless its the art style like with halo and some rpgs.excelR83

You did not just say you liked Halo for the art style. :lol:

No need for fanboyish remarks. Halo 3 has a pretty art style and I'm not even a Halo fan.

The proof is in the pudding, and nobody cares if the Xenos has better specs on paper if it doesn't show in the results.

Gears (November 06?) is still easily the best-looking 360 game out there. The PS3 has surpassed it several times since then with it's exclusives (Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, arguably Ratchet & Clank), but the 360 hasn't produced anything to rival any of them. Mass Effect looked nice, sans the technical issues.

TEH 360 HAS TEH MORE POWER... so when are we going to see it? Is this a, dare I say it, just wait situation? I thought it was the PS3 that was mocked for all of it's untapped POWAH.

excelR83

[QUOTE="jbz7890"]

[QUOTE="coldsteel321"]And yet its games look better(GT5 P, Uncharted, Ratchet) and even MGS4...excelR83

Thats just an opinion. Its pathetic that you bring it up.

Anyway, yes the xbox 360 does have a more powerful GPU. The GPU alone is the bottleneck on any computer (or console), so the xbox 360 will produce better graphics.

Yeah, except it hasn't, sort of proving that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Especially funny is how you parrot the "it has 3 cores" argument that you learned from System Wars. I'd love to hear an off-the-cuff explanation of how these "Cores" make it better for gaming. No, I'm joking, don't google it, it proves nothing.

Sorry, Xbox 360 has the more powerful GPU. You can't argue against facts, bro.

[QUOTE="excelR83"]

The proof is in the pudding, and nobody cares if the Xenos has better specs on paper if it doesn't show in the results.

Gears (November 06?) is still easily the best-looking 360 game out there. The PS3 has surpassed it several times since then with it's exclusives (Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, arguably Ratchet & Clank), but the 360 hasn't produced anything to rival any of them. Mass Effect looked nice, sans the technical issues.

TEH 360 HAS TEH MORE POWER... so when are we going to see it? Is this a, dare I say it, just wait situation? I thought it was the PS3 that was mocked for all of it's untapped POWAH.

xX0LDSCH00LXx

[QUOTE="excelR83"][QUOTE="jbz7890"]

[QUOTE="coldsteel321"]And yet its games look better(GT5 P, Uncharted, Ratchet) and even MGS4...BioShockOwnz

Thats just an opinion. Its pathetic that you bring it up.

Anyway, yes the xbox 360 does have a more powerful GPU. The GPU alone is the bottleneck on any computer (or console), so the xbox 360 will produce better graphics.

Yeah, except it hasn't, sort of proving that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Especially funny is how you parrot the "it has 3 cores" argument that you learned from System Wars. I'd love to hear an off-the-cuff explanation of how these "Cores" make it better for gaming. No, I'm joking, don't google it, it proves nothing.

Sorry, Xbox 360 has the more powerful GPU. You can't argue against facts, bro.

Lots of tears here. Sorry bro, your argument is like saying a Mack truck has a more powerful engine than a Ferrari. Maybe so, but who will win in a race? What does it matter if the 360 GPU has better specs if they can't produce something better than Gears with this much development time. PS3 is supposed to be such a headache for developers, yet it's WIDELY CONSIDERED that both Uncharted and MGS4 look better, as evidenced by COUNTLESS threads on here as well as a ton of respected gaming journalism outlets.

Sorry bro.

Lots of tears here. Sorry bro, your argument is like saying a Mack truck has a more powerful engine than a Ferrari. Maybe so, but who will win in a race? What does it matter if the 360 GPU has better specs if they can't produce something better than Gears with this much development time. PS3 is supposed to be such a headache for developers, yet it's WIDELY CONSIDERED that both Uncharted and MGS4 look better, as evidenced by COUNTLESS threads on here as well as a ton of respected gaming journalism outlets.

Sorry bro.

excelR83

That would be because you have to know the facts, which I do and I'm quite proud of. It's well known that the 360 has the more powerful GPU, but the PS3 has the Cell, which can contribute to the graphical edge you see in games like Uncharted. The CPU and GPU work in tandem. So there you have it.

[QUOTE="excelR83"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="excelR83"]

[QUOTE="LibertySaint"]yes but now those gpus in each system are not good at all! a card relevent to those say a 7950gtx which out performs them even is only 80 bucks! so don't get impressed with console visuals unless its the art style like with halo and some rpgs.BioShockOwnz

You did not just say you liked Halo for the art style. :lol:

No need for fanboyish remarks. Halo 3 has a pretty art style and I'm not even a Halo fan.

Get off my nuts fanboy. You started that account as a troll, you were THE biggest troll on SW post-jedigemini/Lilac_Benjie, and one day you make a "RUH ROH I BOUGHT A PS3 I WAS WRONG" post and suddenly you're fair and balanced. LOL

I will never, I repeat never, take you seriously, so direct your responses in another direction.

There was nothing fanboyish about what I said. I simply think Halo is a pathetic example of the first thing to pop into someones head when they think "great art styles". I cited better ones in my other post, and you'd have to be insane not to agree.

Wow, there's no need for that kind of behavior, seriously. Simmer down. You bash anything to do with 360 and then you get mad when people tell you about it. Well, that's how it is. Now can't we all be civil?

ROFL

I can't even believe you expect to be taken seriously. Maybe most of SW has forgotten what you're all about, but I haven't. I remember your trolling days, which is why I find this "I'm suddenly mature, I willtake what I think is the high road in an attempt to make you look bad" stuff HILARIOUS.

I don't bash anything to do with 360, smart guy. Some of the titles I listed as having better art styles are 360 games, including Viva Pinata which is unique and awesome. I give credit where credit is due, and Halo deserves none in the art style category.

The proof is in the pudding, and nobody cares if the Xenos has better specs on paper if it doesn't show in the results.

Gears (November 06?) is still easily the best-looking 360 game out there. The PS3 has surpassed it several times since then with it's exclusives (Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, arguably Ratchet & Clank), but the 360 hasn't produced anything to rival any of them. Mass Effect looked nice, sans the technical issues.

TEH 360 HAS TEH MORE POWER... so when are we going to see it? Is this a, dare I say it, just wait situation? I thought it was the PS3 that was mocked for all of it's untapped POWAH.

excelR83

The graphics are better on 360 on every single multiformat game I have ever played. I hear Sony fanboys saying that the 360 multiformat titles are pulling down the ps3's so called untapped power. I think however due to the 360's superior graphics on games such as Assassin's creed (see gamespot graphics comparison) people like you and I are starting to see through Sony's marketting ploy. The untapped power seems to delay games like Alone in the Dark for ps3 for half a year and for what reason as the graphics will be the same. (see R6 Vegas which was delayed twice for ps3 due to so called development issues). Obviously the developers will get used to this system but how is it good that the console is more complex yet on advancement scales average?

[QUOTE="excelR83"]Lots of tears here. Sorry bro, your argument is like saying a Mack truck has a more powerful engine than a Ferrari. Maybe so, but who will win in a race? What does it matter if the 360 GPU has better specs if they can't produce something better than Gears with this much development time. PS3 is supposed to be such a headache for developers, yet it's WIDELY CONSIDERED that both Uncharted and MGS4 look better, as evidenced by COUNTLESS threads on here as well as a ton of respected gaming journalism outlets.

Sorry bro.

BioShockOwnz

That would be because you have to know the facts, which I do and I'm quite proud of. It's well known that the 360 has the more powerful GPU, but the PS3 has the Cell, which can contribute to the graphical edge you see in games like Uncharted. The CPU and GPU work in tandem. So there you have it.

Oh yes, the facts that you don't understand. This number is higher than that number, it is better.

The 360 may have a more powerful GPU, but right now PS3 graphics > 360 graphics, and you'd have to be a blind fanboy to dispute it... which is why I expect you to try.

ROFL

I can't even believe you expect to be taken seriously. Maybe most of SW has forgotten what you're all about, but I haven't. I remember your trolling days, which is why I find this "I'm suddenly mature, I willtake what I think is the high road in an attempt to make you look bad" stuff HILARIOUS.

I don't bash anything to do with 360, smart guy. Some of the titles I listed as having better art styles are 360 games, including Viva Pinata which is unique and awesome. I give credit where credit is due, and Halo deserves none in the art style category.

excelR83

Trying to make up stuff, because I called you out? Wow. Seriously, relax... I don't appreciate some of the derogatory words you use.

360's more powerfull than PS3, the facts!

Games like Call of Duty 4 run at a framerate of 60 frames per second on both systems. But Call of Duty 4 is a game that experienced technical problems with various bottlenecks due to the varying levels of action that occur on the screen. The game was originally designed to run at 60 frames per second at 720p, but it caused drops in the framerate.

The proof of this is the fact that Call of Duty 4 runs at a resolution of only 640p on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. This may be "equal" in terms of what is displayed on the screen, but the FACT is that Call of Duty 4 is putting a much larger burden on the PS3 than it is the Xbox 360.

Confirmation of this can be seen in the large number of games that "run smoothly at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but struggle to run at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3." That was a quote from Gamespot.

It's simple math: The Xbox 360 can display approximately 500,000,000 polygons per second, compared to 275,000,000 polygons per second for the Playstation 3.

Multi-platform games use what is called a "Lowest Common Denominator" form of programming.

Basically, what this means is the developers start out by saying to themselves, "We need to develop a game for the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3."

Then, the developers put limits on how many polygons they are going to put on the screen, and they determine what framerate the game will run at as a result of that number.

When the developers multiply the number of polygons displayed on the screen by the number of frames being displayed each second, they examine what that number is. Multi-platform games can NEVER display more than 275,000,000 polygons per second, or else they can't be released for the Playstation 3, since the PS3 cannot display more than 275,000,000 polygons per second.

As a result, developers are often conservative with the number of polygons being displayed with multi-platform games, especially with the poor reputation of inconsistent framerates that the Playstation 3 has acquired over time.

It basically comes down to these THREE factors:
If a multi-platform game running at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3 uses 250,000,000 polygons or less, it gives the developers the ability to allow the Xbox 360 version to run at 60 frames per second, since 500,000,000 is double the number of 250,000,000.

If a multi-platform game running at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3 uses over 250,000,000 polygons per second, it means the Xbox 360 version is also forced to run at only 30 frames per second. This is an unfortunate situation, because it means the Playstation 3 will be using 90-100% of its power by displaying somewhere between 250,000,000 to 275,000,000 polygons per second, while the Xbox 360 will only be using 60% of its power, since the Xbox 360 has so much more polygon power.

If a multi-platform game is intended to run at 60 frames per second on the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 version will also run at 60 frames per second. The Playstation 3 version will be limited to 275,000,000 polygons per second. The Xbox 360 will also be limited to 275,000,000 polygons per second, due to the fact that 275,000,000 is the Lowest Common Denominator. This is unfortunate, because it means the Playstation 3 version will be using between 90% to 100% of the systems power, while the Xbox 360 will be using only 60% of the systems power. Call of Duty 4 is an excellent example of this situation.

The Playstation 3 only transfers data at a rate of 54MB per second as a Blu-ray player being used for movies. When it comes to gaming, there are hardware "bottlenecks" that the Playstation 3 faces, which allows the PS3 to transfer data at a rate of only 9MB per second. The Xbox 360 transfers data at a rate of 16MB per second.

The Official Playstation Magazine wrote an article about the longer load times of PS3 games shortly after the Playstation 3 was launched. The only time the PS3 does not have to deal with either noticeably or significantly longer load times is when the game is placed on the PS3 hard drive. Sadly, it often takes over TWENTY long minutes to write the game onto the PS3 hard drive. Even when a PS3 game is written onto a hard drive, the load times between Xbox 360 games and PS3 games is virtually identical, as we saw in Devil May Cry 4 and Grand Theft Auto 4.

Gamespot has conducted a Graphics Comparison between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 each year since the Playstation 3 has been available. Xbox 360 has been declared the winner of the Graphics Comparison each of the three years: 2006, 2007, 2008.

2008 shows that the gap in performance continues to get bigger, in favor of the Xbox 360. Here is the hyperlink that shows the newest comparison-one the Xbox 360 easily defeats the Playstation.

Also, the Xbox 360 uses 10MB of eDRAM. This new form of RAM technology is something that even Windows Vista-based PCs do not yet take advantage of. The next release of Direct-X on the PC will start to take advantage of eDRAM technology for gaming, but it still hasn't happened yet.

This just goes to show you how incredibly far ahead of its time the Xbox 360 Unified-Shader GPU/Multi-Core CPU design is.

Thanks to Mike Zoran

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="excelR83"]Lots of tears here. Sorry bro, your argument is like saying a Mack truck has a more powerful engine than a Ferrari. Maybe so, but who will win in a race? What does it matter if the 360 GPU has better specs if they can't produce something better than Gears with this much development time. PS3 is supposed to be such a headache for developers, yet it's WIDELY CONSIDERED that both Uncharted and MGS4 look better, as evidenced by COUNTLESS threads on here as well as a ton of respected gaming journalism outlets.

Sorry bro.

excelR83

That would be because you have to know the facts, which I do and I'm quite proud of. It's well known that the 360 has the more powerful GPU, but the PS3 has the Cell, which can contribute to the graphical edge you see in games like Uncharted. The CPU and GPU work in tandem. So there you have it.

Oh yes, the facts that you don't understand. This number is higher than that number, it is better.

The 360 may have a more powerful GPU, but right now PS3 graphics > 360 graphics, and you'd have to be a blind fanboy to dispute it... which is why I expect you to try.

Dude, I just told you that, and I explained why that is. :|

[QUOTE="excelR83"]

The proof is in the pudding, and nobody cares if the Xenos has better specs on paper if it doesn't show in the results.

Gears (November 06?) is still easily the best-looking 360 game out there. The PS3 has surpassed it several times since then with it's exclusives (Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, arguably Ratchet & Clank), but the 360 hasn't produced anything to rival any of them. Mass Effect looked nice, sans the technical issues.

TEH 360 HAS TEH MORE POWER... so when are we going to see it? Is this a, dare I say it, just wait situation? I thought it was the PS3 that was mocked for all of it's untapped POWAH.

killab2oo5

Such as? I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just don't think anything on 360 betters Gears, and according to the general froth at the mouth people here develop for it's graphics, most people would agree with me.

Mass Effect could have done it if it wasn't plagued by technical problems. BioShock has a cooler art style, but I don't see anything that beats Gears on a technical level.

[QUOTE="coldsteel321"]And yet its games look better(GT5 P, Uncharted, Ratchet) and even MGS4...L1qu1dSword

in that list uncharted is the only one that comes close.

I think MGS 4 is the only one of those listed that comes close and perhaps even surpasses Gears. Not quite sure why Ratchet or GT5 are doing there though.

360's more powerfull than PS3, the facts!

Games like Call of Duty 4 run at a framerate of 60 frames per second on both systems. But Call of Duty 4 is a game that experienced technical problems with various bottlenecks due to the varying levels of action that occur on the screen. The game was originally designed to run at 60 frames per second at 720p, but it caused drops in the framerate.

The proof of this is the fact that Call of Duty 4 runs at a resolution of only 640p on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. This may be "equal" in terms of what is displayed on the screen, but the FACT is that Call of Duty 4 is putting a much larger burden on the PS3 than it is the Xbox 360.

Confirmation of this can be seen in the large number of games that "run smoothly at 60 frames per second on the Xbox 360, but struggle to run at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3." That was a quote from Gamespot.

It's simple math: The Xbox 360 can display approximately 500,000,000 polygons per second, compared to 275,000,000 polygons per second for the Playstation 3.

Multi-platform games use what is called a "Lowest Common Denominator" form of programming.

Basically, what this means is the developers start out by saying to themselves, "We need to develop a game for the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3."

Then, the developers put limits on how many polygons they are going to put on the screen, and they determine what framerate the game will run at as a result of that number.

When the developers multiply the number of polygons displayed on the screen by the number of frames being displayed each second, they examine what that number is. Multi-platform games can NEVER display more than 275,000,000 polygons per second, or else they can't be released for the Playstation 3, since the PS3 cannot display more than 275,000,000 polygons per second.

As a result, developers are often conservative with the number of polygons being displayed with multi-platform games, especially with the poor reputation of inconsistent framerates that the Playstation 3 has acquired over time.

It basically comes down to these THREE factors:
If a multi-platform game running at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3 uses 250,000,000 polygons or less, it gives the developers the ability to allow the Xbox 360 version to run at 60 frames per second, since 500,000,000 is double the number of 250,000,000.

If a multi-platform game running at 30 frames per second on the Playstation 3 uses over 250,000,000 polygons per second, it means the Xbox 360 version is also forced to run at only 30 frames per second. This is an unfortunate situation, because it means the Playstation 3 will be using 90-100% of its power by displaying somewhere between 250,000,000 to 275,000,000 polygons per second, while the Xbox 360 will only be using 60% of its power, since the Xbox 360 has so much more polygon power.

If a multi-platform game is intended to run at 60 frames per second on the Playstation 3, the Xbox 360 version will also run at 60 frames per second. The Playstation 3 version will be limited to 275,000,000 polygons per second. The Xbox 360 will also be limited to 275,000,000 polygons per second, due to the fact that 275,000,000 is the Lowest Common Denominator. This is unfortunate, because it means the Playstation 3 version will be using between 90% to 100% of the systems power, while the Xbox 360 will be using only 60% of the systems power. Call of Duty 4 is an excellent example of this situation.

The Playstation 3 only transfers data at a rate of 54MB per second as a Blu-ray player being used for movies. When it comes to gaming, there are hardware "bottlenecks" that the Playstation 3 faces, which allows the PS3 to transfer data at a rate of only 9MB per second. The Xbox 360 transfers data at a rate of 16MB per second.

The Official Playstation Magazine wrote an article about the longer load times of PS3 games shortly after the Playstation 3 was launched. The only time the PS3 does not have to deal with either noticeably or significantly longer load times is when the game is placed on the PS3 hard drive. Sadly, it often takes over TWENTY long minutes to write the game onto the PS3 hard drive. Even when a PS3 game is written onto a hard drive, the load times between Xbox 360 games and PS3 games is virtually identical, as we saw in Devil May Cry 4 and Grand Theft Auto 4.

Gamespot has conducted a Graphics Comparison between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 each year since the Playstation 3 has been available. Xbox 360 has been declared the winner of the Graphics Comparison each of the three years: 2006, 2007, 2008.

2008 shows that the gap in performance continues to get bigger, in favor of the Xbox 360. Here is the hyperlink that shows the newest comparison-one the Xbox 360 easily defeats the Playstation.

Also, the Xbox 360 uses 10MB of eDRAM. This new form of RAM technology is something that even Windows Vista-based PCs do not yet take advantage of. The next release of Direct-X on the PC will start to take advantage of eDRAM technology for gaming, but it still hasn't happened yet.

This just goes to show you how incredibly far ahead of its time the Xbox 360 Unified-Shader GPU/Multi-Core CPU design is.

Thanks to Mike Zoran

[QUOTE="excelR83"]ROFL

I can't even believe you expect to be taken seriously. Maybe most of SW has forgotten what you're all about, but I haven't. I remember your trolling days, which is why I find this "I'm suddenly mature, I willtake what I think is the high road in an attempt to make you look bad" stuff HILARIOUS.

I don't bash anything to do with 360, smart guy. Some of the titles I listed as having better art styles are 360 games, including Viva Pinata which is unique and awesome. I give credit where credit is due, and Halo deserves none in the art style category.

BioShockOwnz

Trying to make up stuff, because I called you out? Wow. Seriously, relax... I don't appreciate some of the derogatory words you use.

:lol:

Oh wow, too much. Too, too much. Making stuff up LOL.

I'm not the only one that remembers you from the old days bud. If you don't appreciate derogatory words such as "smart guy", please report me. I know that you are faking shock and playing dumb in some pathetic attempt to get me to break TOS, but you can forget about that. Your new game of trying to agree with the "popular" Gamespot people to appear bipartisan and objective is pretty hilarious when put into context. It's like Lindsay Lohan telling kids not to drink.

You were mentioned in the same breath as jedigemini, Lilac_Benjie, -Renegade et al as a huge troll who generally contributed nothing positive to Gamespot in any way shape or form. Remember the "I bought a PS3 it's actually good" post? Why was it such a big deal? People were shocked that the biggest fanboy on SW was saying something positive about the PS3 and many thought it was all some elaborate trap. It's crazy how you can even pretend you don't know what I'm saying.

When I was deciding what console to get, I actually believed that the PS3 was more powerful simply because of all the hype around.

Look at the facts. The PS3 is NOT more powerful than the 360.

The PS3 was actually rushed by Sony. Originally they were going to use another cell for the GPU, but they changed their mind at the last moment and asked Nvidia to make a custom GPU for them. Nvidia basically took a 7800gtx and toned it down.

The Cell can not make up for a weak GPU. A computer or console is only as powerful as its weakest link, and the RSX will always make the PS3 weaker than the 360.

Such as? I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just don't think anything on 360 betters Gears, and according to the general froth at the mouth people here develop for it's graphics, most people would agree with me.

Mass Effect could have done it if it wasn't plagued by technical problems. BioShock has a cooler art style, but I don't see anything that beats Gears on a technical level.

excelR83

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"][QUOTE="excelR83"]

The proof is in the pudding, and nobody cares if the Xenos has better specs on paper if it doesn't show in the results.

Gears (November 06?) is still easily the best-looking 360 game out there. The PS3 has surpassed it several times since then with it's exclusives (Uncharted, MGS4, GT5, arguably Ratchet & Clank), but the 360 hasn't produced anything to rival any of them. Mass Effect looked nice, sans the technical issues.

TEH 360 HAS TEH MORE POWER... so when are we going to see it? Is this a, dare I say it, just wait situation? I thought it was the PS3 that was mocked for all of it's untapped POWAH.

excelR83

Such as? I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just don't think anything on 360 betters Gears, and according to the general froth at the mouth people here develop for it's graphics, most people would agree with me.

Mass Effect could have done it if it wasn't plagued by technical problems. BioShock has a cooler art style, but I don't see anything that beats Gears on a technical level.

Listen excel, you can't make an argument using games. Judging a game's graphics is entirely subjective and arbitrary. The only way to determine which system is more powerful is to look at the hardware that powers it.

Yeah, all of my friends think that the PS3 has better graphics :roll:TMontana1004

It's not just some guys friends, fanboy. It's websites such as Gamespot, IGN, etc who are saying Uncharted and especially MGS dethrones Gears. This isGamespot, by the way, where only Gamespot scores and opinions count, and in Gamespot's opinion, MGS4 is better than anything out for 360 graphically, and it's 10 > any single game out for 360. Sorry, we play by the same rules we played by when every PS3 game "flopped" and we had to listen to nonsensical horse**** from 360 fanboys day in and out. Don't like the rules, leave. ;)