PS3 vs Xbox 360

Wayde_R · 08-15-2005, 05:14 PM

No, this isn't another thread with an opinion.

Actually I've been hunting down specs on both and have questions. It seems that Xbox's ATI processor has printed Polygonal performance, 500 million triangles per second. I haven't seen a similar rating for the PS3.

Sony has only really said stuff like... runs at 550MHz, 1.8 TFlops and 51 billion dots perseond. But I haven't seen triangles per sec spec. I understand this is the benchmark for modern consoles. Is it because it's just not known yet? Or have I missed this spec somewhere?

The other thing when comparing the two next gen consoles is the sumary after the last E3 in May that the PS3 was twice as powerful as the Xbox360. Now, I know I've read all the stuff about how the Xbox has it where it counts and it'll still kick PS3's butt in graphics, I'm not out to debate which is better. I am interested in how they arrive at this figure that the PS3 is more powerful.

Sony has published that the PS3 will have a "cell" based processor at 3.2GHz. Xbox 360 says they'll have three processors at 3.2GHz. Now, I realize that processor speed may only give half the story. I understand some amazing technology is going into PS3's core as it's going to have some 300 million transistors. They say 360 shall have over a terraflop of floating point processing power but the PS3 will have over 2. I guess this isn't deduced by processing speed, ovbviously.

Any help is much appreciated, thanks

Richard_T · 08-15-2005, 09:29 PM

Well I don't know about all that tech talk but you know what? I'll wait for the games to come out. No matter how powerful a system is, if it doesn't have the games I like to play, I'll but the system that does. I own a Playstation 2 and an X-Box but I use my PS2 about 90% of the time. I know the X-Box has nicer graphics and in game DD 5.1 and yadda yadda but the PS2 just has so many damn fine games that I just would rather use it instead.

I'm not bashing X-Box here, just laying out the cold hard facts as I see them. Give me a system, whatever it is, with the games I like to play and you've got me as a steady customer. I really could care less which system is more powerful but that's just me talking

Morgan Jolley · 08-15-2005, 10:58 PM

The idea behind making games is different for Sony and Microsoft. MS wants companies to make games the same way they have been for years. Sony wants developers to start producing visuals the same way that CGI films are produced and make special effects based on algorithms instead of pre-rendered animations (for example, Sony showed a video of a truck crashing into a gas station, followed by an explosion that was created in real-time using real physics equations and wasn't pre-animated). The two consoles are optimized for their respective ideologies, I believe.

The PS3 has more raw power for multiple kinds of applications, be it movies, music, games, internet, or whatever else. This means it will be more expensive.

Wayde_R · 08-16-2005, 03:05 PM

Thanks. That tech stuff is exactly what I am interested in though. I've read a compelling website that takes you on a step by step of why the 360 is actually better for graphics rendering. Because basically floating point calculations (PS3's strong point) isn't the whole picture.

I think you're on to something when you say Sony wants devel to use algorithmic graphics physics, this would be very cool use of floating point, probably be where it comes in. Imagine making a car crash in game and it never happens the same way twice. Wow.

Which is better? I personally am going to own 360 the day it comes out. But gaming is only part of what I will do with it. I probably won't own a PS3, not that I hate it. I like that PS3 has some advanced features 360 will miss out on. HDMI, Blu-Ray, Bluetooth, that's very cool.

Games... I'll play the new hockey game every year. I'll play a fight game or two. I'll play a few corny games based on superhero movies and wonder why I bother. I'll pick up about two to three "premier" games for the system, whatever 360's Halo turns out to be. But over the life of a games system that's all I'll play. I wish I could play more.

I need the game that gives me time to play more games. If I could pop a disc into my console and time freezes. No wife, no kids, no house, no job, no lawn, no neighbours, friends, extended family, obligations... just until I pull that disc from the drive and then everything's back to normal again. I'd be a happy gamer. Hell, I might even be competitive online.

James T · 08-16-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

The idea behind making games is different for Sony and Microsoft. MS wants companies to make games the same way they have been for years. Sony wants developers to start producing visuals the same way that CGI films are produced and make special effects based on algorithms instead of pre-rendered animations (for example, Sony showed a video of a truck crashing into a gas station, followed by an explosion that was created in real-time using real physics equations and wasn't pre-animated). The two consoles are optimized for their respective ideologies, I believe.

The PS3 has more raw power for multiple kinds of applications, be it movies, music, games, internet, or whatever else. This means it will be more expensive.

Sounds like it's made for Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid games. That's not a bad thing

**HTF Ads**

Doug Miller · 08-16-2005, 09:36 PM

Ah, my wife kills me. She actually asked me why I wanted both systems when I don't use either of the ones I have now. Silly woman.

Doug

Morgan Jolley · 08-16-2005, 10:40 PM

How many pairs of shoes or handbags does she have?

Doug Miller · 08-17-2005, 01:00 PM

I won't use that arguement, I'll lose. I think she has less than 20 pairs of shoes and only 10 or so bags, which isn't a whole lot.

Doug

Morgan Jolley · 08-17-2005, 01:36 PM

Sure, if you have 40 feet and 10 arms.