realgundam "Dr_Yassam. A link on what? On how cell works? there are tons of articles flowing around GS and internet to tell you how it works (try howstuffworks.com ?)" I've read many of them already. I work in computers, have done so for 20 years (starting out as as a programmer for statistical applications). This is why your post caught my attention, not because I need to learn about computers or Cell. :| Regarding a link, I'm referring to the same point made earlier, which you've elaborated on with the statement "As for the Cell's matrix communicator (let's just call it that for now), it is 4 times more efficient than binary in standard calculation, and potentially 16 times faster if they can get the matrix crossing right". Again, I don't see how this is related to games, since it sounds more like you're referring to a more efficient technique for running certain mathematical operations on Cell rather than a general technique for coding on the processor. Hence my interest in a link, (which I acknowledge you can't find at the moment). Besides, this current topic is probably not the best place for such a discussion :)
lukaszg16 wrote: "Most of my friends already changed there 360 for PS3..." Gee, isn't it strange how things like that always seem to be observed by gamers online only. ;)
realgundam wrote: "Sadly I dont have a link here. But I know most of the ported games are using generic binary converter for the cell's coding." Most code will be written in a high level language and therefore any port would require such code to be re-compiled using the compiler(s) of the specific platform, they will not be converting the code at a binary level. (Besides, COD4 and Burnout Paradise were not ported from the 360) So I'm unclear what you're really saying here. :| ?!? Regarding RAM, this is available working space. Devs use as much RAM as they possibly can for games, since that's how you get the best results. The games are not running with large amounts of memory unused, the memory is filled most of the time, where old data is being overwritten by new data as the game progresses. Therefore the reason we see some details missing on PS3 versions is not because it doesn't have the power, but often because they didn't have enough RAM available (which is probably the case seen in the first NFS screenshot). Fortunately, the more skillful devs often find ways around this. Maybe I'm missing something here, but what you're saying is questionable. Hence if you could provide a link at sometime, it would be very useful in this discussion. :)
smsmith1978 wrote: "No, it's people like me who point out the obvious. 360 won this article. Didn't it? Stop trying to spin it your way and just swallow that bitter pill." Yes, technically it 'won', but there's no need to rub it in people's faces. :|
phantasm_x wrote: "People like smsmith1978 are the reason why these arguments can actually be pointless instead of actually adding technical knowledge to our brains and letting us have fun and express opinions" For the first time, I agree with you here. :)
phantasm_x wrote: "The PS3 has more power and potential, once it is unlocked fully, not that it hasn't been at all yet, but once it is more, the PS3's true power will shine" Devs haven't explored the full potential of the 360 nor the PS3, since ALL consoles have 'untapped power' throughout their lifespan, which means devs get more and more out of them over time. The PS3 is no different to the 360 in this respect. :)
realgundam wrote: "So if sony can get this right, we should be able to see games that use much less ram on PS3 than today." Hmmm, I think you're referring to a specific instance there, i.e. a technique to perform a certain operation/task in a way which requires less ram, but I doubt it's a technique which offers much benefit to games....But I'm interested just the same.... Got a link? If not, no worries, we can discuss it another time when you have more info. :)
phantasm_x wrote: "By the way, a long way back I mentioned the fact that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 and someone said that it was negligibly more powerful and that it wasn't as big of a difference as between Xbox and PS2. First of all, the Xbox was barely more powerful than the PS2, and it also overheated and froze much more often. Does that sound familiar to current generation?..." I was the person you're referring too, and again, like Zanthia561, stop resorting to making up facts to try to get the upperhand. Last gen, the XBox didn't have the big problems seen this gen with the 360. Yes it could overheat, but the number of units this happened to was normal for an electrical device. In contrast, the PS2 had more problems because the original model (not the PS2 slim) had problems with the DVD drive for many gamers, leading to the well known DRE (Disk Read Error). Hence the PS2 was LESS reliable than the XBox. The other console at the time, the GC was the most reliable. And to say the XBox was only slightly more powerful than the PS2 is again nonsense. Last gen, the success of the PS2 meant it was the leading format for game development (like the 360 is today), and yet in the vast majority of multi-format games, the XBox version was the one with MUCH better textures, more polygons, and a better framerate. The PS2 was an excellent (but complicated) console, but it wasn't as powerful as the XBox. Of all the consoles, it was the GC and PS2 which were similar in terms of power, and these two consoles are closer to the comparison between the 360 and PS3 today (smaller storage medium on the GC, but better GPU), except the GC was slightly more powerful. "On to the PS3 and Xbox 360 power. The PS3 processor is significantly more powerful, and due to the 8 cell processor designed specifically for extremely intense gaming" This just shows you have no clue what you're talking about. The Cell processor is a superb processor. It was designed NOT specifically for gaming, but for general use in mathematical intensive applications, for which gaming is just ONE area. It's strength is it's arithmetic performance, making it twice as powerful as the 360's CPU in this respect (6 cores for arithmetic vs 3 cores on the 360). However Cell's weakness is running main/general code, i.e. game code, since it has just one core for this task compared to 3 cores on the 360 (although this doesn't make the 360 three times as powerful in this respect, it's actually more nearer to twice as powerful). Hence just looking at the CPUs alone, Cell is better for arithmetic (physics, part of AI, sound processing, etc), and the 360's CPU (Xenon) is better for main code (game code, another part of AI, etc). So overall, depending on the game, they balance out. For some games the 360's CPU will have the advantage, for others the PS3's CPU will have an advantage, for many it's about the same. Now in future, with more and more enthasist being placed on floating-point arithmetic, the Cell should come into it's own more and more, but overall, it's still not a major difference. For the GPU's, most devs consider at best, RSX in the PS3 to be equal to Xenos in the 360, but at worse, slightly less powerful compared to Xenos. So in that respect, it's a draw. For memory, the PS3's OS still requires 40MB more space compared to the 360's OS (72MB vs only 32MB), which means PS3 games have almost 1/10th less RAM to use than on the 360, which is why you sometimes find better textures and a few more details in 360 versions of multi-format games. Fortunately, things are improving all the time on the PS3 with the OS using less and less (at one time it needed 96MB!), so good work on Sony's part for reducing it, but it still has a long way to go to match the 360. Blu-ray has a capacity advantage over DVD, with the famously quoted 50GB vs 9GB, but the reality for games is that on Blu-ray it's 22GB available for games on single layer, and about 45GB for dual layer, and on DVD it's about 7GB for games. So to make up the difference, 360 games will need rely more on multiple disks and downloadable content. So that's clearly an advantage of Blu-ray over DVD. However, the DVD drive is faster than the Blu-ray drive in the PS3 (about 40% faster on average), which is why more and more PS3 games are using 4-5GB of space on the HDD to improve the load times. So speed is one area where DVD has an advantage over Blu-ray. Now I could go on and on, but the difference is, I understand the technology and can happily discuss the pros and cons of EACH, whereas you phantasm_x are doing what I see many gamers doing, which is to believe what you *want* to believe and only see the pros of one console and the cons of another. :|
Zanthia561 wrote: "yea gears of war kept getting pushed back and pushed back THE REASON? dude epic designers already said they cant do gears of war 3 on xbox360" Please, if you going to argue, argue with the truth. I know for a fact that what you've just said there is completely untrue, which weakens anything else you have to say here. (Epic have only started talking about Gears 2, they've said NOTHING about Gears 3 except that they *might* consider after Gears 2). So by all means fight your corner, but don't make things up to try to get the upperhand please. :|
Dr_Yassam's comments