PS3 or xbow 360 most powerful

Status
Not open for further replies.
R5Rich said:
It would be easier if you all got your penises out and checked that way
Click to expand...

That’s a very mature and constructive comment, thank you. But, as I’m sure you are no doubt aware, the PS3 and 360 that we are talking about in this thread are games consoles and not penises, so I’m not sure what you’re playing with :eek:
 
lowrider007 said:
True.

Also with regards to Uncharted being possible on the 360 I'm sure that is possible but at the same quality as the PS3 version, I'm not so sure, according to Christophe Balestra (co-president of Naughty Dog) he seems quite sure that it is not,

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/..._term=Main Account&utm_campaign=microblogging

"I guarantee that this game couldn't be working on Xbox 360. It would be impossible. I'm 100 per cent sure of this,"

"You can play the entire game without loading. We don't require an install. We're doing all the post-processing effects on the SPUs [Synergistic Processing Units]. The quality of the depth of field we have, you can't do that on the Xbox. We've invested a lot of time maximising the power of the machine,"

"First of all, we fill the Blu-ray 100 percent, we have no room left on this one. We have 25GB of data; we're using every single bit of it."
Click to expand...

That's more or less saying 'executive of Sony Computer Entertainment says Uncharted 2 cannot be done on Microsoft console', being Naughty Dog is a subsidiary of Sony. It holds as much weight as Rare (owned by Microsoft) claiming viva pinata cannot be done on the PS3.
 
Id like to throw one thing into the argument for the PS3 (I own just a 360)

But with the PS3 being a BR device, techincally, textures and that can be about 3 times more of that than on a compressed dvd9 for the 360, as I understand from an article some time ago texture mappings and that can be severly compressed to for the DVD9 size, whilst the BR can obviously hold about twice that, so with Exclusive games this might be getting tapped into, why Uncharted can look so good.

Same goes for sound, technically the BR should be uncompressed sound.
 
Depends if compression is lossless or not really - there really is very little reason to store textures/sound uncompressed - its only because they have such a storage space they feel like they can just fill it without worrying about compressing it - lets call it 'lazy' at worst...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
wannabedamned said:
Without a doubt, Which is strange as the 360 does have the superior GPU.
Click to expand...

It's not strange if you remember at one point Cell was going to be the PS3's GPU, NVidia's RSX was designed and put there to compliment Cell not to handle all the graphical workload by itself.

Kreeeee said:
As the OP shows, on paper the 360 is the most powerful for raw graphical processing power. The PS3 devs just seem to have more talent and use a lot of clever tricks to push the system.
Click to expand...

Only if you leave Cell out of the equation, the "clever tricks" just involve utilising Cell and not expecting RSX to do everything that's graphics related.
 
Last edited:
ps3ud0 said:
The concept of the Cell (and I guess Larrabee) potentially seem to be the way of the future - just something that hasnt been fully realised and may not be at the console level (think thats what the PS3s legacy will be IMHO)
Click to expand...

What concept? Massively parallel-ising things is an old concept, as is augmentation with supporting processors (where the Cell shines is supporting more powerful main CPU/GPU's).

mmj_uk said:
Only if you leave Cell out of the equation, the "clever tricks" just involve utilising Cell and not expecting RSX to do everything that's graphics related.
Click to expand...

Er... I know.
 
Last edited:
Unsure why you need to unpick my statement - pretty obvious I was referring to the fact that the Cell/Larrabee were heralded as the next coming as multi-core PU and its still debateable their success outside of servers and more commercial applications such as consoles/consumer GPUs...

Perhaps I need to be more specific or is it more generic in my statements? ;)

:sigh:

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
skippi90 said:
The sheer size of MGS4 means one thing is a certainty. There'd be a hell of a lot of disc swapping involved. :p
Click to expand...

we shall find out when the next one arrives on both systems.


it's quite fascinating that with each new PS3 exclusive announcement we are told that this can't be done on 360 by the PS3 fankids and yet.... when said games are not made by a Sony owned company and are later announced as multi-format, the 360 version usually turns out to be the better version.

of course, as we all know. once they go multi-format the programmers then forget all they know about PS3 programming and make the PS3 version just that little bit worse than the 360 version, just for the hell of it.

just like we all know the story of how Ghostbusters had the PS3 as it's lead platform and how the dev said it would be better on that system and how it would be better again if only made for PS3 because of all the power.

and yet on release...... the PS3 version was lacking and even after a download to help fix the grafix, was still not as good as the 360 version.


all i know is this....
i have 2 HD consoles that i'm happy with and when i play the games i'm thinking is this a good or bad game. not..... does it look better than something on system b or even does it play better than something on system b. just is it good or bad.
 
cu3ed said:
Id like to throw one thing into the argument for the PS3 (I own just a 360)

But with the PS3 being a BR device, techincally, textures and that can be about 3 times more of that than on a compressed dvd9 for the 360, as I understand from an article some time ago texture mappings and that can be severly compressed to for the DVD9 size, whilst the BR can obviously hold about twice that, so with Exclusive games this might be getting tapped into, why Uncharted can look so good.

Same goes for sound, technically the BR should be uncompressed sound.
Click to expand...
To be fair this is less of an issue for 360 now you can install to HDD even if the game shipped with two or three DVDs... Granted there would still be challenges doing that for more than one game at a time for people with 20GB machines (or not at all for arcade editions which would have to disc swap which would be annoying).
 
I'm not sure why everyone thinks uncompressed textures on an optical disk are a good thing? Generally speaking, when streaming data from a disk format, the limitation is bandwidth not processing power. The last tests I saw relating to this saw an almost linear improvement in throughput in relation to how much the file was compressed.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1565/fast_file_loading_pt_1.php?page=2

Using uncompressed data on your game disk just increases loading times! Moreover - huge disk sizes are only good for one thing: pre-rendered cut scenes. Bleh.
 
But as Turn 10 found out with Forza 3 even with heavily compressed textures there is simply not enough room for content on a single DVD unless you make sacrifices.
 
mmj_uk said:
But as Turn 10 found out with Forza 3 even with heavily compressed textures there is simply not enough room for content on a single DVD unless you make sacrifices.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that not using some form of lossless compression on disk would just be meaningless willy waving.
 
[Cas];15278429 said:
Why all the arguing? Everyone knows Dreamcast is the way forward.
Click to expand...

if only mate ... was so much better than a ps2 ... and to think if sega had succeeded with at .. might have been a 4 way race still :(
 
Well well well..............
Where on earth do I start.
Firstly I didn’t realise this was such a sleep depriving ulcer inducing wart on the life of a day to day gamers life that would result in such a overwhelming response/attack/rant............ like wow

I suppose a thank you to all the informative polite replies would be a good place to start. I would like to think my simple question was well & truly answered.

You (& you know who you are) are right........ the console is not the contributing factor unless we were comparing PS1 with PS3. The performance is too close to call between the xbow (yes thank you for pointing that out LOL) & PS3.

I bought the PS3 coz I always had the sony consoles of late (I’m 39 by the way..... so I like to think I’ve had a few............. consoles that is before you kids start again).

I also got carried away by Sony’s marketing which hasn’t nor probably will come to fruition.

I really like my PS3 but I’ve also really enjoyed playing Gears / Forza on my mates xbow (do I really have to keep calling it that) & actually prefer the xbox controller.

Now to all the muppets & you definitely know who you are who actually took their time to read , digest then come up with a witty retort.... i.e. get your penises out (I admit I did chuckle).. come on, there’s me sad for even posting the question........but you, YOU actually read it all then wrote that.......... and you weren’t the only one LOL

So, to make a small % of you happy... I have what I want.... now please consider this thread closed.

Good night....... penis has left the building
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom