ps3 V X360

These kinds of thread lead to silly fanboy comments and arguments, but will wait and see for now.

The article itself looks reasonably detailed technically, though it's not got any good conclusions other than 'you decide' really. It's really more for comparing tables of numbers and figures that Mr. Joe Public will not have a clue about, hell, most people on here wont even know what some of the technical stuff means, I know I don't.
 
nice, seems the xbox360 gpu is better than the 7800GTX... (i have a 7800GTX in my system, and its good, but not THAT good ye ken? surprised they didnt shift it to a 7900GT with lower power consumption etc...
 
Nickg said:
nice, seems the xbox360 gpu is better than the 7800GTX... (i have a 7800GTX in my system, and its good, but not THAT good ye ken? surprised they didnt shift it to a 7900GT with lower power consumption etc...
Click to expand...
It doesn't surprise me as companies including programmers seemed to be focusing on consoles rather than PC. Simply because it is a huge market with millions and millions of potential customers.

I just feel that graphic card market is over-rated, over-priced and over-complicated especially these confusing mislabelling...it puts me off, not forgetting all the system configuration, drivers and hardware issues, you get the idea.
 
Im suprised at the fact that sony basically opted for a pc graphics chip with a gimmicky name slapped on to it "rsx reality systhesiser". The 360 gpu s far and away superior to it. :confused:
 
Gerard said:
Im suprised at the fact that sony basically opted for a pc graphics chip with a gimmicky name slapped on to it "rsx reality systhesiser". The 360 gpu s far and away superior to it. :confused:
Click to expand...


It was a "Last minute" addition, the cell was supposed to be powerful enough to do the graphics, sound and everything else. Sony realised this wasn't the case and had to more or less take what they could for the price they were willing to pay.

They may end up paying the price in other ways.
 
pumaz said:
Actually it's worse than that they missed PS3 having Wifi for free!

Love my Xbox 360 but i'm not stupid, I can see the potential of the PS3.
Click to expand...


Bit its a choice. Some people may not want all that so its irrevalant
 
LOL.. fanboy fodder guaranteed..

The PS3 is an excellent machine, as is the 360.. all this 'comparing' prices is for kids..

If you don't need WiFi, or a HD disc player etc, etc and just want to play games, the 360 core is miles cheaper..

If you want Blu-ray/WiFi etc, etc, then clearly a PS3 would work out cheaper.

So what???
 
Scarecrow said:
Bit its a choice. Some people may not want all that so its irrevalant
Click to expand...

And some people will ;)

But the point is everyone was/is saying how expensive the PS3 is but if you want to bring the 360 up to the same spec it's gonna cost you a lot more.

I would expect there to be a large number of people who will want a hard drive, Wifi and even an all in one solution for playing the next generation of HD movies and this is something the the 360 can't offer in it's present form.
 
It's just not that simple.. you could argue

1. Wifi - this is the worst network connection, and adds typically 10-30ms latency, which is not ideal.. plus differing chipsets etc often interact and create dropouts, etc.. I have a wireless AP in my house for surfing the web etc, but I would never dream of connecting my console up to it..
2. Gold Live subscription can be had cheaper on Ebay and promotions, and it offers a much better service then PS3 online. Developers don't have to write hardly any code to use it, all the servers/bandwidth and QoS are pretty much guaranteed, and it scales very well, almost all 360 games offer online gameplay.. in contrast the PS3 online in it's initial phase seems to have limited games offering online play, and who is paying for the bandwidth/QoS/Servers? to be any good, I can't see it being 'free' for long, it just doesn't scale well, and I can't see Sony or Game developers stumping up large amounts of cash for it, that eats into their profits..
3. The 360 can play films from external harddrives/have HD films streamed to it right now.. For streaming you now only need a PC with XP or similar to stream WMV-HD's, and with a media centre edition PC you can stream a whole manner of HD material..
4. It's not clear who is going to win the HD-DVD/Bluray 'war', and some films will only be available on a single format, hence you really need both players to play all your fav films..
5. MS are starting to offer TV episodes and HD films via download.. yet another source of HD material.

I'd say it's very difficult to know which way to go which seems independant of console price..
 
Kronologic said:
It was a "Last minute" addition, the cell was supposed to be powerful enough to do the graphics, sound and everything else. Sony realised this wasn't the case and had to more or less take what they could for the price they were willing to pay.
Click to expand...

More like Sony wanted the Cell to render all graphics but then saw what the 360's Xenos GPU was capable of and went to Nvidia at the last minute. ;) :D
 
pumaz said:
And some people will ;)

But the point is everyone was/is saying how expensive the PS3 is but if you want to bring the 360 up to the same spec it's gonna cost you a lot more.

I would expect there to be a large number of people who will want a hard drive, Wifi and even an all in one solution for playing the next generation of HD movies and this is something the the 360 can't offer in it's present form.
Click to expand...



One again irrevalant. A parent buys a core for her son to put in his bedroom. Its on a 15in black box. does he need all that stuff? no. Tour telling me he needs a blueray player in his room?. once again no. you cant compair on price mate
 
pumaz said:
And some people will ;)

But the point is everyone was/is saying how expensive the PS3 is but if you want to bring the 360 up to the same spec it's gonna cost you a lot more.
Click to expand...

That picture seems to conveniently forget that if you wanted a HDD you wouldn't buy a core anyway, you buy a Premium which works out cheaper.
 
Scarecrow said:
One again irrevalant. A parent buys a core for her son to put in his bedroom. Its on a 15in black box. does he need all that stuff? no. Tour telling me he needs a blueray player in his room?. once again no. you cant compair on price mate
Click to expand...

Are you saying that most nextgen console owners are kids who only want or need the basic system and don't really care for HD DVD/Blue Ray etc?

I beleive most of these console are bought for and by people earning there own money who are a bit techy and would want these features and there must surely be a proportion of those that would see the PS3 as the cheaper, neater and possibbly better option.

I dare say there will be a propportion of next gen console owners who are school age and do play them on portables TV's that just want the basics. But i feel this would be a far smaller propportion. Surley the parents of those kids would see the PS2, XBOX or even the Wii as a better (cheaper) option?
 
Currently the majority of next gen owners are probably 16+ (ie able to earn their own money).

However as the consoles become more mainstream the kiddies will be getting them for their rooms. I think this will start from this Xmas onwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom