Do you consider Xbox 360 the most Powerful Console out there?

I consider it equal with the PS3. PS3 has the better CPU and mroe disc space. 360 has a better GPU and has better memory options. JumpingMirrior

Yeah they pretty much cancel out. But i cant help but think after seeing all the multiplats inferior on the ps3 that 360 must be easier to develop for..or its simply more powerful 

I DO. DO YOU?henri1960

i think that right now it is...hope it stay on the top like it's doin'

No. PS3 and 360 are pretty much even. But then again it doesn't matter, just look at the ps2. It was the least powerful console and it kicked some major ass thanks to the game library. In the end its the games that make the console not the other way around.

PS - only next gen system I own is a 360. 

[QUOTE="JumpingMirrior"]I consider it equal with the PS3. PS3 has the better CPU and mroe disc space. 360 has a better GPU and has better memory options. mmogoon

Yeah they pretty much cancel out. But i cant help but think after seeing all the multiplats inferior on the ps3 that 360 must be easier to develop for..or its simply more powerful

The cell is way harder to develop for. And yeah, the above two quotes pretty much sum up my view too. 

Yes and no. Right now, the 360 is the easiest for developers to work on, since the architecture is essentially the same as any modern PC. The PS3's Cell processor introduces a lot of relatively new concepts, which creates a bit of a learning curve for developers. We're seeing better stuff from the 360 in many respects, but that's largely because developers are still learning how to get the most out of the PS3.  I'll reserve any particular judgment until I see what Kojima's MGS team and the Final Fantasy folks are able to bring to the table.

Technical differences aside, the capabilities of both are fairly similar, but they each have certain strengths and weaknesses for devs to deal with in order to bring those benefits to the forefront. I don't have a PS3 yet, but it will be very exciting to see what it's truly capable of. Frankly, I think they're both pretty remarkable pieces of equipment, but then, I stopped being a fanboy for any particular company a long time ago.

does it really matter? ... i enjoy the games..that's all i really care about.gokuofheaven

IF IT WAS THE MOST POWERFUL CONSOLE THEN EXPLAIN WHY IT BREAKS DOWN SO MUCH!

Yeah. But not more powerful than PC.CHAOSWEAV3R

IF IT WAS THE MOST POWERFUL CONSOLE THEN EXPLAIN WHY IT BREAKS DOWN SO MUCH!

MrPatriot12

[QUOTE="MrPatriot12"]

IF IT WAS THE MOST POWERFUL CONSOLE THEN EXPLAIN WHY IT BREAKS DOWN SO MUCH!

Rentago

Yeah, i hate the whole CGI thing. And the whole, "shopwing in game engines" when its actualy pre-rendered CGI. 

ANouther thing to consider is the fact that the cell is powerfull, but the graphics cards i nthere ect, arn;t good enough to handle it. It's having so much excess power in there. Sure it looks awsome on paper, but with nothing really utilising the powerm it's semi pointless. However with the 360, it's being used to its full power, when hwe come to the end of this gen, and the 360 is being properly used, it'll pull out some big ones, which i have no doupt the ps3 will also do. It's too early to call it. Devs arn;t used to this kind of power.death1505921

I do coz Australia runs on 240v not 120v

So Xbox and PS3 has to to handle more Voltage which means more power.

[QUOTE="Rentago"][QUOTE="MrPatriot12"]

IF IT WAS THE MOST POWERFUL CONSOLE THEN EXPLAIN WHY IT BREAKS DOWN SO MUCH!

death1505921

Yeah, i hate the whole CGI thing. And the whole, "shopwing in game engines" when its actualy pre-rendered CGI. 

Without a doubt.....it is espesially with the new xbox 360 elite out now.

technicly its not since the ps3 uses about twice as much power. if you were asking if it was the best then yes. better graphics = nothing if the game-play sucks here are some easy formulas.

bad graphics + awesome game-play = a good game

good graphics + bad game-play =  a bad game

in other words it does'nt matter what console you have if you have good games its good if you have bad games its bad simple as that.

ps3 is more powerful, but the 360 is way better rigtht now, lets see if it keeps it up.

power is nothing when the opponent has game like gears of war.

its like those giant guys fighting tony jaa. tony has way more skill and deafeats the powerhouses.

like the 360 is doing to the powerhouse ps3

No. PS3 and 360 are pretty much even. But then again it doesn't matter, just look at the ps2. It was the least powerful console and it kicked some major ass thanks to the game library. In the end its the games that make the console not the other way around.

PS - only next gen system I own is a 360.

Santas_Hitman

but the xbox 1 was so much better than the ps2...sad fact it outsold. 

The PS3 is actually physically more powerfull with the CELL chip. So really it isn't an opinion question.redsnake9111

You're right, it isn't.  What is, I think, is which architecture will prove to be more difficult for developers to utilize effectively.  The Cell uses a fairly unique CPU architecture, while the 360 uses memory in a way that i've only heard of on old SGI workstations.

Like those old SGI's, the 360 uses a shared memory architecture, with 512 MiB of GDDR3 running at 700MHz for both CPU and GPU to utilize.  The PS3 is more like a traditional PC, as it has 256 MiB of 650Mhz GDDR3 for the GPU and 256 MiB XDR RDRAM clocked to the CPU die for the CPU.

Total memory bandwidth for both is technically about the same (21-22GB/s).  The main difference is that with the 360, you can conceivably allow the GPU or CPU to use more than 256 MiB, but this can be problematic, as one of them may limit the resources available to the other.  With the PS3, you can't go over 256 MiB with either of them, but there's no potential bottleneck as a result...i.e. the CPU using 384MB RAM and leaving the GPU with only 128MB.

The inherent difficulty with both is that for the 360, if all three cores are in use, that's sucking up a lot of resources and forcing the system to ping-pong how that memory is shared.  For the PS3, the difficulty lies in figuring out how to juggle the main CPU and it's 6 RISC SPE's (if they use 'em all) with a maximum of 256 MiB system memory / 256 MiB GPU memory.

Taking games like Gears of War into account, which use all three cores, that memory is probably ping-ponging between the CPU and GPU like crazy and putting some serious strain on the system.  I seem to recall Itagaki from Team Ninja mentioning that turning off one or more of the cores helps in this regard, but I could be mistaken.  Dunno about the PS3, since I don't have one yet and haven't run across any recent developer interviews about it.

I could be wrong, but those are my interpretations just based on the specs. 

I DO. DO YOU?henri1960

HELLA NO! I believe the 360 is the most powerfuly entertaining system in existance. HA! 

The PS3 absolutely poops all over the Xbox 360. Now, I'm not a fanboy of the PS3, I have a 360 myself and I love it, but it's blatantly obvious the PS3 is the powerhouse of the next generation. The only problem with it right now is its lack of good games and lack of a universal online system like Xbox Live. Once a solid flow of well-developed games start to be released and they create a system like Xbox Live, the PS3 will take the lead and will be king of the next generation of consoles for many years.TruthlessHero

I would say that it has the better development of games goin for it right now. After Ps3 gets on its feet then maybe I could honestly answer this question.

Of course it is. That is why we got DoAX2. Only the 360 could handle such boob physics :P

No. The PS3 is more powerful end of story