I have a 360. I think the ps3 is slightly more powerful and a complete package with blu-ray. I think the 360 has just as good games. Better downloadable content and online stuff and most of the games run really well on it where the ps3 stuff sometimes has some quirks as far as multiplats although the gap has gotten closer as developers have gotten ahold of the hardware. Exclusives are a wash imo. It really depends on what you want. The 360 you have to pay for online and you get a better experience imo. The ps3 is free. The ps3 is $100 more. I might have to swap discs on the 360. Who cares. I can watch bluray on my ps3. The 360 has downloadable hd content. Both have motion controllers coming someday. Who knows if this stuff will even be a factor on these systems this gen. Nintendo seems to have a huge headstart on that stuff this gen. I think in future generations the 360's motion system looks better. So that might play a role down the road.

If you look at the games coming out. The most impressive to me are

The 360

Alan Wake

MAss Effect 2

Forza 3

Splinter Cell

halo odst/reach

plus others not as good to me lik eleft4dead2, crackdown 2, etc....

The ps3

Uncharted 2

God of War III

Ratchet

GT5

plus others like HEavy Rain, The last guardian coming etc..

The 360 seems to be a bit quicker with the games i give them that. Both systems have the big multiplats like Final Fantasy and World at War.. Bioshock 2. lost planet 2 although that's timed on the 360 i think.. The ps3's games are more exclusive. Both systems have impressive games graphically. I went into this before. I do think the ps3 is capable of slightly more but they are really close. What we are going to see is the 360 release something that looks better than anything, then the ps3 release games that match it or one up it. But i think these systems both are pretty much reaching their peak at this point where they are taking advantage of the hardware now. I do think the ps3 might be able to squeak a little more out of it if developers really delve into it, but we are seeing pretty much what we have now.

Nothing on ps3 looks better than Alan Wake E3 demo (yes not even uncharted2 or KZ2) but of course if it was played on PC with 360 controller then its another story

Syferonik

it was definately the 360. look at the button popups. IT was the 360 version. Y

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]First you have to quantify what effect the SPU's would have if they indeed are not taken advantage of. In every other gen, the more powerful system had the best versions of multiplatsalmost allof the time...yet in this gen supposedly the most powerful machine only gets the best version when the game is tailored for it.

Steppy_76

The reason the xbox ports aren't hampered as bad is because it's better at dealing with high level code. The ps3 you really have to write low level code to really leverage the hardware and take advantage of it. But it's more difficult to do that. The 360 is a more traditonal multi core design. You have 3 cores each running 2 threads and a beefed up graphics processor. The ps3 is actually running 9 threads, but it's graphics processor is not as powerful. So figure it out. SAying the 360 is no closer to pc architecture than the ps3 is not correct imo. Most of these high level developers that have been developing multicore code are more familiar with the 360 architecture. If you really leverage the hardware and get into the guts of it and write low level code you are going to be able to get more out of the ps3. Even though i agree there isn't a huge difference. I never said there was. But the ps3 is ultimately capable of doing more.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]To be honest, you don't know really what you're talking about. Most of the stuff in your posts this thread has been either wrong, or nonsensical suppositions.

Steppy_76

Or coming from someone on system wars you saying that doesn't mean a whole lot. Actually you saying pretty much voids any credibility you have.

Just because you know what frequency is, doesn't mean you can see past what is right in front of you either. I work with techs all the time who can't tell their ass from their elbow. Speaking of which one of my techs who knows the subject matter just improperly installed antivirus software on our network when the systems were not set up to handle it. I in turn corrected the problem because he wasn't able to. I read the things you said man and it's all great. But that doesn't mean you see the bigger picture either. If you think you know everything that pretty much says it all right there. I don't know everything and i don't pretend to. You apparently do. Which leads me to believe you don't.

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]There is no system of measurement, Mhz/Ghz is a measurement of frequency. To get the most basic idea of how powerful these processors are, you have to take that frequency and multiply it by how much work that architecture can do in each cycle. We've got TONS of examples of equivilently clocked processors performing drastically different in the IT world(most famously probably the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon XP).

Steppy_76

Right it takes some understanding of how they work and what you are trying to do. Fortunately I understand this even though people here tell me I don't know what i'mt alking about here all the time, which is funny in itself.

Or coming from someone on system wars you saying that doesn't mean a whole lot. Actually you saying pretty much voids any credibility you have.

In before Grammar rage.

"could care less". Drives em wild

hip-hop-cola2

sorry that was wrong. I agree I should do better, but system wars and forums have destroyed me.

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"][QUOTE="dethroned3"]

THIS WAS WHAT YOU SAID:

"The Playstation 3 processor is over 4 times as fast as that of the Wii, and about equal to that of the Xbox 360. Its graphics card is about 10% more powerful than that of the Xbox 360, and a little over twice as powerful as that of the Wii. It has less than half the RAM of either Wii or Xbox 360. And these aren't my experiences, these are facts I just looked up on Wikipedia. "

those are false.

why the hell did you just bring up the 3.2 Ghz thing?

Steppy_76

Right it takes some understanding of how they work and what you are trying to do. Fortunately I understand this even though people here tell me I don't know what i'mt alking about here all the time, which is funny in itself.

As beautiful as Forza 3 and GT5 look do you really care beyond it being a graphics showcase at this point? I used to love racing games but don't really care anymore.

http://e3.gamespot.com/video/6211459/?hd=1

So awesome

[QUOTE="Walker34"]

[QUOTE="Redonkulous_D"]

"So can we agree now the ps3 is more powerful?"

If you can give the specs to prove this. Games just say what devs are doing with the hardware. Specs say what it's capable of.

Redonkulous_D

Specs don't tell the whole story either because it has to do with how it's designed and how it can apply to games as well. From a straight computational standpoint the ps3 can do twice the floating point operations per second. But like i said it also has to do with design. It also has to do with who's developing and willing to develop for it like i said above as well. The reality is the ps3 is so different than a tri-core processor it's a big **** in a lot of ways.

Not necessarily though. Because the design and understanding what the designs strengths and weaknesses are when applied to games also have to be taken into account. There are certain things a tricore processor is going to excel at vs a single processor with 7 spe's. Yes it is based on fact. And that's the real fact.