|
Silver Member Username: Iufan4lifeulPost Number: 609 Registered: May-05 | That is BS. Compare the stats head to head. "Bandwidth The PS3 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and 25.6 GB/s of RDRAM bandwidth for a total system bandwidth of 48 GB/s. The Xbox 360 has 22.4 GB/s of GDDR3 bandwidth and a 256 GB/s of EDRAM bandwidth for a total of 278.4 GB/s total system bandwidth."- IGN "CONCLUSION When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment." http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html That is directly quoted from IGN, we will have to wait to see which one actually "looks and performs better" but when you break it down the xbox 360 wins technical side. 512MB RAM vs. 256MB RAM, 3.2 GHz processor for PS3, compared to 3, 3.2Ghz CPU cores. Just my 2 cents |
|
Silver Member Username: Chaunb3400Huntsville, Alabama U.S. Post Number: 738 Registered: Jul-05 | yep, but im going to get both, because when it comes to video games i will pay what ever for a great product |
|
Bronze Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 62 Registered: Nov-05 | In addition, there's more to system architecture than RAM sizes and bandwidths. Sometimes, some of the numbers themselves can be deceiving. It also depends on the architecture's efficiency. Either way, I am confident that none of the next generation consoles will be runaway hits, unlike how it was with the PlayStation 2 and the X-Box. Right now, the economy is in such a state that people will be less inclined to spend $300+ on yet another game system when the current generation of systems appear to still have plenty of life left. If anything, people will just buy a new game for their older consoles for Christmas and use the rest to pay for gas, electricity, and heat. And, the next generation has another aspect that kind of makes me nervous: IBM involvement. All three contenders are using IBM technology for their game systems. If IBM decides to pull the rug and shakeout the industry with their own game system, the current contenders may be in for a world of hurt. - Reinhart |
|
Bronze Member Username: D_singhPost Number: 41 Registered: Sep-05 | Economy? People not wanting to spend $300+? BS if you ask me. Where I work, which, BTW, is not is such an "affluent" area, people are already lining up to purchase an XBox 360. Not to mention $300 iPods, $400 digital cameras and $800 receivers. C'mon, people are always willing to spend cash, although SUV sales have been dropping recently. I don't buy the IBM argument. Xbox and Play Station are established systems with game developers in their pockets already. It's kinda like saying Brembo, which supplies braking systems for many high-perfomance cars, decides to "pull the rug" and make their own car. |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 140 Registered: Nov-05 | The fallacy is that Brembo makes brakes, but they don't have the capacity to make their own cars. IBM, on the other hand, does have a manufacturing infrastructure that may allow them to make game consoles. They make computers, including servers. Although, they did sell their PC business to Lenovo. As for X-Box and PlayStation being established versus IBM (if they were to choose), please do remember that Sony was once a newcomer in a field where Nintendo and Sega were well established with developers in their pockets. And, Sony's entry was meet with skepticism, including speculation that the PlayStation would join the ranks of the 3DO, Jaguar, and the CD-i. You should remember how that scenario played out. - Reinhart |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 31 Registered: Jul-05 | when people throw these numbers around, they are making stupid arguments. Gamers play games, not RAM or other specs. The XBOX is more powerful than the PS2, and I still enjoyed RE4 and Jak and Daxter despite of that. The PC is spec driven, not consoles. Maximize what you have and good games come. That said, the cost of games is starting to worry me also. I understand Ipods and other things are costly, but in the eyes of the masses and most parents, video games are still toys. My brother is 15, I am 30, and my parents consider the 360 a toy, no matter how hye it is. I work at EB part time, and most parents still consider these things toys, unlike the Ipod which they may use themselves. The gaming industry is slowly moving away from this image with the exception of Nintendo. Sorry about getting caught up in another subject, the topic was system power. The story he is referring to, he actually has a part wrong. both systems have 512 of ram. The PS3 will divide it, but resources can be shared. anadtech has great articles on the technical issues of the PS3 cell processor and the 360. Both will be powerful, but power is not what you play. You play games. The PS3 is not here yet, so let's wait and see. Also, the PS3 is coming out later than the 360 so it should be more powerful. wasn't the Xbox more power ful than the PS2? |
|
Silver Member Username: ReinhartPost Number: 155 Registered: Nov-05 | "I understand Ipods and other things are costly, but in the eyes of the masses and most parents, video games are still toys." An unfortunate, but true stereotype. This is also the problem when you have politicians complaining about videogame violence, citing that the industry is poisoning children when those games were designed for mature players. "The story he is referring to, he actually has a part wrong. both systems have 512 of ram. The PS3 will divide it, but resources can be shared." A.K.A., the PS-3 uses a unified memory layout. "Both will be powerful, but power is not what you play. You play games." True. What's the point of the system if it doesn't have the games? "Also, the PS3 is coming out later than the 360 so it should be more powerful. wasn't the Xbox more power ful than the PS2? " Not necessarily. The Genesis/SNES debate might somewhat go against the general idea. The SNES had a better graphics section and had a better memory access time. The Genesis, on the other hand, had a CPU clock speed that was twice that of the SNES. In some ways, the Genesis was better while the SNES was better in others. But, of course, both systems had great games, including many worthwhile titles that were exclusive to their respective platforms. As for the PlayStation 2 versus X-Box. The X-Box has more muscle, but the PlayStation 2 had a highly configurable architecture that was decidely less conventional than the x86-based X-Box. It was how the PS-2 architecture was designed that allowed things to be done on it that many originally thought wasn't possible, including realtime DTS surround. Since you mentioned it, Anandtech also has great articles detailing the inner workings of the EmotionEngine core which makes for really fascinating read, including how the PS-2 can work exclusively in SIMD. It's not just raw power but also how you can make that power work for you. - Reinhart |