360 vs. PS3

[quote]GaMeOvEr305 wrote:
Where did you heat this? This would really fuck my plans of buying one for XMas.
[/quote]

Its from one of those Microsoft press releases. Forget where. A simple Google search will do.

Rumor has it that instead of slashing prices after the cheaper, cooler units come out in Q1 2007… they will also bundle the HDDVD drive with it instead of slashing costs yearly.

So you might want to wait. Either that or get a modded xbox360 with water cooling if you can afford it. Or an external cooler that snaps onto the back. (A simple google search will tell ysou what brands are available).

[quote]fallout188 wrote:
I know many people have been saying that the PS3 and 360 are the same spec wise, but how can this be true when there’s a year difference between release dates.[/quote]

Because Sony dropped the ball. They pulled a Dreamcast and rushed the PS3. It doesn’t even work the way its supposed to originally. (broken SPEs on each unit).

[quote]
I mean if you bought a computer at the time the 360 came out and bought a computer just last month the one bought last month is clearly going to be superior in almost every way.[/quote]

If its a $6000 computer. Quadcore CPU & Dual geforge 8800s then yes. But the 360 is only $300.

[quote]
Maybe I don’t know enough about computers and stuff like that.[/quote]

Don’t worry bout it. Just ask those who do know.

[quote]
Secondly, I know many people are switching to 360 because of Gears of War and other games because there’s a limited selection right now for PS3 but 360 has been out for a year and more which of course is going to mean more game selection.[/quote]

Yup. And its got Halo 1, 2, & 3.

And the next grand theft Auto is on the 360 first =).

[quote]
I had my doubts for a little while but I’m sticking with Sony. Might also have something to do with a 50 inch HD TV coming my way for Christmas.[/quote]

Good luck with that. but know this: Sony is coming out with most games in 720p. just like the 360. Its the same resolution. A 360 & a PS3 will look the same on your tv for most ganes.

But the 360 will have prettier graphics since its more powerful & more efficient. That & awesome online play. Xbox Live anyone? (I’m talking about actual real-world perfomance playing games… not theoretical calculations that don’t mean anything in the real world.)

[quote]fallout188 wrote:
I know many people have been saying that the PS3 and 360 are the same spec wise, but how can this be true when there’s a year difference between release dates.[/quote]

The PS3 specs have been known for a long time, and haven’t changed since the Xbox 360 was introduced last year.

Developer need to get development kits so that they can build games before the launch; so once the specs are officialised and dev kits start appearing, you can’t change too much before release.

The PS3 and X360 aren’t the same specwise. On paper, the Cell is quite a bit more powerful than the triple-core Xenon. They both have the same amount of total memory (512MB), but the PS3 splits it 256/256 main memory and graphics, while the X360 has a unified memory. The 360 also has a more impressive GPU, vs. the RSX included with the PS3.

And the Cell having 8 SPEs but only using 7 is not “broken”, it’s a decision that was made to increase chip yields. It allows IBM/Sony to use Cells even if one of the SPEs is not functional. A bit like Intel selling Pentium that failed at 2GHz as 1.6GHz model, it is rather common in the semiconductor industry to have built-in failure allowances.

What is often repeated in various discussion is that the Cell is one PPE (like a “standard” CPU) with 7 SPEs, one of which is reserved for the OS (with another that can be requisitioned; leaving only 5 SPEs that can be guaranteed available for games.) 5 SPEs + 1 PPE is then compared to the Xenon’s 6 hardware threads and they appear equivalent. What’s generally not taken into account, is that the SPEs are incredibly fast at certain operations and will leave any of the Xenon’s threads in the dust. The trade-off is the added complexity of using those SPEs correctly, since they need to be “babysitted” by the main CPU so that they remain busy. Splitting game logic is also made more difficult, since the instructions that the PPE and SPE accept aren’t the same. On the X360, you’re free to split your work in thread as you see fit and you let the OS schedule them on whatever core is available. The OS also reserves very little of the CPU for itself.

The lackluster first batch of games seems to indicate that many developers are having trouble really extracting the power from the PS3. The X360, on the other hand, keeps being lauded by developer as being easy and as having the best development tools ever seen on any console.

So it basically comes down to very powerful and easy, vs. more powerful but hard. I think memory might be the great leveler, since in both case, I’m sure developer would appreciate more RAM to work with.

An interesting note: it was mentioned, by fairly believable sources, that most of the games that came out in the 1st year for the X360 only made use of a single core. Dead Rising and Gears Of War being among the first games to actually take advantage of more of the power that’s available.

So, in pragmatic terms, my guess is that we’ll be seeing some pretty incredible games on both systems. I’m really curious about seeing some of the first party games that will be coming out on the PS3 in 2 to 3 years. If a game can really manage to make good use of the PS3’s potential, it should be quite an experience. Unfortunately, those games will probably be few and far between.

[quote]pookie wrote:
fallout188 wrote:
I know many people have been saying that the PS3 and 360 are the same spec wise, but how can this be true when there’s a year difference between release dates.

The PS3 specs have been known for a long time, and haven’t changed since the Xbox 360 was introduced last year.

Developer need to get development kits so that they can build games before the launch; so once the specs are officialised and dev kits start appearing, you can’t change too much before release.

The PS3 and X360 aren’t the same specwise. On paper, the Cell is quite a bit more powerful than the triple-core Xenon. They both have the same amount of total memory (512MB), but the PS3 splits it 256/256 main memory and graphics, while the X360 has a unified memory. The 360 also has a more impressive GPU, vs. the RSX included with the PS3.

And the Cell having 8 SPEs but only using 7 is not “broken”, it’s a decision that was made to increase chip yields. It allows IBM/Sony to use Cells even if one of the SPEs is not functional. A bit like Intel selling Pentium that failed at 2GHz as 1.6GHz model, it is rather common in the semiconductor industry to have built-in failure allowances.

What is often repeated in various discussion is that the Cell is one PPE (like a “standard” CPU) with 7 SPEs, one of which is reserved for the OS (with another that can be requisitioned; leaving only 5 SPEs that can be guaranteed available for games.) 5 SPEs + 1 PPE is then compared to the Xenon’s 6 hardware threads and they appear equivalent. What’s generally not taken into account, is that the SPEs are incredibly fast at certain operations and will leave any of the Xenon’s threads in the dust. The trade-off is the added complexity of using those SPEs correctly, since they need to be “babysitted” by the main CPU so that they remain busy. Splitting game logic is also made more difficult, since the instructions that the PPE and SPE accept aren’t the same. On the X360, you’re free to split your work in thread as you see fit and you let the OS schedule them on whatever core is available. The OS also reserves very little of the CPU for itself.

The lackluster first batch of games seems to indicate that many developers are having trouble really extracting the power from the PS3. The X360, on the other hand, keeps being lauded by developer as being easy and as having the best development tools ever seen on any console.

So it basically comes down to very powerful and easy, vs. more powerful but hard. I think memory might be the great leveler, since in both case, I’m sure developer would appreciate more RAM to work with.

An interesting note: it was mentioned, by fairly believable sources, that most of the games that came out in the 1st year for the X360 only made use of a single core. Dead Rising and Gears Of War being among the first games to actually take advantage of more of the power that’s available.

So, in pragmatic terms, my guess is that we’ll be seeing some pretty incredible games on both systems. I’m really curious about seeing some of the first party games that will be coming out on the PS3 in 2 to 3 years. If a game can really manage to make good use of the PS3’s potential, it should be quite an experience. Unfortunately, those games will probably be few and far between.
[/quote]

Show off.

Ive got to give playstation 3 this one. well worth the money. Graphics are much better, loads better, Has some great games comming out for it. xbox 360 really only has halo 3 and gears of war right now. oblivion is going to be on both. plus the ps3 also fixed the problem with the backwards compatability, plug ur ps3 into the internet and dl the patch.

Although Pookie’s post probably has some great points (most of which I don’t understand due to technical jargon) I’m still going to have to go with the PS3.

I’ve just got too many games for PS2 and switching back and forth between systems would be a hassle and as the above poster said, they fixed the backward compatibility problem so big + there for me.

The fact that my house will soon have a 50 inch HD TV capable of viewing 1080p images was also a big reason for the PS3 decision. If it wasn’t an HD TV I most likely would have gone with the 360.

O well my minds made up. Thanks for all the feedback guys. Now I’ll just have to find the will power to tear myself away from TV and train once I get the damn thing.

[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
GaMeOvEr305 wrote:
Where did you heat this? This would really fuck my plans of buying one for XMas.

Its from one of those Microsoft press releases. Forget where. A simple Google search will do.

Rumor has it that instead of slashing prices after the cheaper, cooler units come out in Q1 2007… they will also bundle the HDDVD drive with it instead of slashing costs yearly.

So you might want to wait. Either that or get a modded xbox360 with water cooling if you can afford it. Or an external cooler that snaps onto the back. (A simple google search will tell ysou what brands are available).[/quote]

This sure is bound to piss of a lot of people that buy one for Xmas. Heck, I was about to buy one, now I have to decide whether to wait or buy a soon to be outdated system. Bah!

[quote]fallout188 wrote:

The fact that my house will soon have a 50 inch HD TV capable of viewing 1080p images was also a big reason for the PS3 decision. If it wasn’t an HD TV I most likely would have gone with the 360.
[/quote]

Eh… I don’t understand this line… Why would you have went with an X360 if the TV was NOT HDTV? You’d be missing just as much as you would be if you hooked a PS3 up to a regular TV…

-FC

FOR THE LAST TIME, GTA WILL BE ON BOTH SYSTEMS THE SAME DAY!

The 360 does 1080p also.

You guys are nerds… comparing proccesors and super computer mega-harddrives and shit. Get a fucking life.

I, personally, will buy them both when the price drops. I want smash brothers for Wii and MGS4 for PS3, aswell as Resident evil 5.

My brother/roommate (we live in an Apartment in northern Manhattan)is or should I say was a complete Sony fan, for the past few weeks he has debated as to what system he should get; the PS3 or the XBOX 360.

After thinking it over today he brought home an Xbox 360 with XBox Live, 2 wireless controllers, 2 headsets, and Gears of War. This looks absolutely amazing on our home setup. We have a 6.1 Yamaha Home Theatre system with amazing sound, and we have an HD Projector (which is the way to go). The projector gives us a 100" inch screen, it can do more but it would take up more room. 1080i looks amazing on it!

If you think about it I feel Sony has lost it’s core fanbase and with limited if any important games coming out not until a year from now, and the issues with a non-existent online system that is yet to be implemented, and quite a few other issues…the XBox 360 right now seems to be the clear winner out of all the consoles.

Of course a year from now things could change, right now the XBox reigns supreme.

I should post a picture of the screen if I can.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Ive got to give playstation 3 this one. well worth the money. Graphics are much better, loads better, Has some great games comming out for it. xbox 360 really only has halo 3 and gears of war right now. oblivion is going to be on both. plus the ps3 also fixed the problem with the backwards compatability, plug ur ps3 into the internet and dl the patch.[/quote]

Loads better? Are you serious? I have seen shots from both and if you can point out a single difference of one clearly besting the other, please do.

And Halo 3 is not even out yet… but that does not diminish at all from everything currently on the 360. The PS3’s biggest problem is actually get their machines in stores…

[quote]Roy wrote:
You guys are nerds… comparing proccesors and super computer mega-harddrives and shit. Get a fucking life.[/quote]

This from the guy who plans on buying both…

I don’t get the Wii.

WTF?!!?!?

I break it down like this:

Wii = family style fun and multiplayer fun. Considering the lack of REAL progress in the graphics area the $250 price tag, while still cheaper than the other two, is still too high IMO. It’s been FIVE FRIGGIN’ YEARS and that’s the best they can do? A new controller? Fine, but not for $250. Not me. I don’t really know how they are going to handle online play but with the sub-par graphics and the titles traditionally seen on the Nintendo platform I don’t think there will be a huge draw to the Wii for online junkies. (I am a former Nintendo fanboy BTW. I used to make fun of the PS2 and the original XBox)

360 = best overall value if you like shooter games, racing etc. They have an excellent year for games coming in 2007, the graphics are excellent and they have a nice head start. I think that the 360 will lead in the number of titles available just like the PS2 did.

PS3 is great, but I don’t think it is priced to get the kind of market penetration to have any real dominance which means fewer games. The hardware is awesome but still overrated and overhyped and they tried to do way too much in one box. They will have a hell of a time scaling DOWN the price of the units and over the next few years the 360 and the Wii will both be much cheaper and the PS3 will remain the significantly more expensive.

The console war will IMHO end up like this:

#1 360
#2 Wii
#3 PS3

PS3 vs Wii, comic style:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=212

The Xbox 360 games are much more my stlye.

If I dont get to shoot, stab or zap some stupid motherfucker with a spell I dont like it.

I like racing games too.

This: Xbox 360 Wireless Wheel Hands-On (Verdict: Driving 2.0) has me itching to run out and by one.

If you guys were going to get a 360, would you get it for x-mas or wait until the ‘newer’ one comes out during the beginning of next year?