gamespot:360 vs PS3 graphics comparison

Cowboy X · 12-03-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquidx

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Cell in the PS3 basically a "dumbed down" version of the "real" thing? As in the "real deal" having 6 or 8 cores and the PS3's Cell only using 4 or something?

I cannot rember the number but due to yeild issues one of the cores in the Cell is disabled as Sony could not guarantee that it would be working in enough PS3s to release it enabled or have devs code for it. another cell core is reserved for OS and bckgriound tasks. So that removes 2 cores from the gaming mix.

If I recall correctly the numbers are:

8 total
1 for os tasks
1 disabled
6 available for gaming

brianh · 12-03-2008, 10:10 PM

and each core is clocked at 3.2 ghz.

I thought there were 7 active cores for the ps3 gaming, but maybe not.

Cowboy X · 12-03-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

So you have a monster Cell processor combined with a mediocre GPU.
And then you have on the 360 side the reverse.

It's no wonder the two are so similar in graphics then.

Based on the power of the Cell, many people did not expect this, most thought that the PS3 would still be better graphically the majority of the time.

People underestimated the power of the 360's graphics solution and overestimated the overall ability of the Cell+RSX combo.

Liquidx · 12-03-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy X

I cannot rember the number but due to yeild issues one of the cores in the Cell is disabled as Sony could not guarantee that it would be working in enough PS3s to release it enabled or have devs code for it. another cell core is reserved for OS and bckgriound tasks. So that removes 2 cores from the gaming mix.

If I recall correctly the numbers are:

8 total
1 for os tasks
1 disabled
6 available for gaming

Ah, thanks for posting. I was trying to recall something I read a long time ago.

brianh · 12-03-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy X

Based on the power of the Cell, many people did not expect this, most thought that the PS3 would still be better graphically the majority of the time.

People underestimated the power of the 360's graphics solution and overestimated the overall ability of the Cell+RSX combo.

Yeah Sony had a little to do with that.

I also remember some programmers complaining and being surprised about the lack of RAM on the ps3.

It sounds like I'm hating on Sony. I'm not but they way oversold the ps3.

What kind of CPU is in the 360? It's a normal Pentium4 isn't it?
Or a "customized" P4.

awol · 12-04-2008, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

Yeah Sony had a little to do with that.

I also remember some programmers complaining and being surprised about the lack of RAM on the ps3.

It sounds like I'm hating on Sony. I'm not but they way oversold the ps3.

What kind of CPU is in the 360? It's a normal Pentium4 isn't it?
Or a "customized" P4.

I think it's an IBM PowerPC chip. You know... The kind that Apple used to use in the Macs? That to me was the oddest move.

Razor05 · 12-04-2008, 09:55 AM

Heh bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big or fast the console is, what matters is the games. Plain and simple. You can have the fastest super computer in the world, but if there is no software for it, what good is it?

BeeF · 12-04-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jusHD

I am so tired of this crap. I had both systems and played games like COD4 on both. The online is the same except for some friend features that the 360 has that the PS3 doesnt. I only have a PS3 now but still think highly of the 360 and this PS3 online crap is complete bullshit. It is just as good and actually more harder due to older players and not as many jackass's. Yeah no one has a mic and that can suck but I am already tired of listening to idiots anyway. And in my opinion COD4 was better graphically and online on the PS3 so calm down already with this crap. Just like in the HD movie war thing here on this forum do you guys work for MS or sony? If not get the fuck off their nuts already.

Must be that time of month again... I have my opinion and you have yours, if you don't like mine get over it.

Cowboy X · 12-05-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awol

I think it's an IBM PowerPC chip. You know... The kind that Apple used to use in the Macs? That to me was the oddest move.

It is unique :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_%28processor%29

It also shows what Macs could do with better software.

brianh · 12-06-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor05

Heh bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big or fast the console is, what matters is the games. Plain and simple. You can have the fastest super computer in the world, but if there is no software for it, what good is it?

That's the thing: 99% of the games are the same.

And the games that are exclusive don't look any different anyway.

Bottom line is, the games are (mostly) the same. The console power is (mostly) the same, but it's harder to jump through the programming hoops of the ps3.

I'll tell ya, my console preference is mostly based on the controller.
I like the xbox controller more then the ps3. I've been playing Motorstorm PR lately. Really fun game but for some reason Sony made the triggers out of PLASTIC. Why??

The triggers on the xbox controller are better. If motorstorm was on both just for that reason, I'd buy the 360 version.

Sony makes the sticks out of rubber, why aren't the triggers rubber?
This is something we gamers WANT to know!

MikeRox · 12-08-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianh

Sony makes the sticks out of rubber, why aren't the triggers rubber?
This is something we gamers WANT to know!

Your Xbox 360 pads have rubber triggers? o_O

The problem with the PS3 triggers IMO is the way they're set up. they have a weird mechanism so don't feel quite right.

The thing I least like with the PS3 pad is the analogue sticks, however it's definitely a much better pad for 2D style games such as Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix, but then the original Xbox 360 D-pads being utter dross has much to do with that. Apparently newer pads now are shipping with much better D-pads?

Visually I have to say, I see absolutely nothing in them really. I can't believe when we have 2 systems delivering such amazing visuals for such a relatively small amount of money, there are so many fanboys determined to pick flaws in one console or the other.

Pinoy · 12-08-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

Your Xbox 360 pads have rubber triggers? o_O

The problem with the PS3 triggers IMO is the way they're set up. they have a weird mechanism so don't feel quite right.

The thing I least like with the PS3 pad is the analogue sticks, however it's definitely a much better pad for 2D style games such as Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix, but then the original Xbox 360 D-pads being utter dross has much to do with that. Apparently newer pads now are shipping with much better D-pads?

Visually I have to say, I see absolutely nothing in them really. I can't believe when we have 2 systems delivering such amazing visuals for such a relatively small amount of money, there are so many fanboys determined to pick flaws in one console or the other.

Agreed, if the damn triggers are going to pull like triggers then they ought to be shaped like triggers. My only other gripe about the DS3 is I wish it was a little big larger.

JJCG · 12-08-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor05

Heh bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big or fast the console is, what matters is the games. Plain and simple. You can have the fastest super computer in the world, but if there is no software for it, what good is it?

A heater.

Razor05 · 12-09-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJCG

A heater.

A Foreman grill?

bboncorr · 12-10-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor05

Heh bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big or fast the console is, what matters is the games. Plain and simple. You can have the fastest super computer in the world, but if there is no software for it, what good is it?

You know i have been saying this for years but that gets you called a fanboy on this site. people don't care about games they care about numbers and how they can brag out their numbers being bigger with no real knowledge of how those numbers really breakdown in real life.

so without further ado, Razor you're a FANBOY.

12-04-2008, 09:55 AM	#52
Razor05 HD = 65 beautiful inches Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 3,296	Heh bottom line is, it doesn't matter how big or fast the console is, what matters is the games. Plain and simple. You can have the fastest super computer in the world, but if there is no software for it, what good is it? __________________ Panasonic TH-65PZ850U Sony KDL37XBR6 Panasonic TH-37PX50U Cambridge Audio Azur 640R & 740C Paradigm Studio 60's, 20's, CC-590 & Seismic 12 Panasonic DMP-BD35 Toshiba HD-XA2 & A35 Motorola VIP1200 Monster HTFS1000, PB2100 AA 1154a MW2 LE Xbox 360 & Halo3 LE + HD-DVD GT: Razor59 Sony PS3 slim GT:Razor_59 Sony PSP

Similar Threads to gamespot:360 vs PS3 graphics comparison
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Xbox 360 vs PS3 Graphics compare	360kid	Gaming & Systems	22	12-07-2006 10:22 PM
Xbox 360 vs PlayStation 3: It's "Fight Night" at the Apollo	Razor05	Gaming & Systems	6	12-06-2006 08:25 PM

12-03-2008, 10:10 PM	#47
brianh High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,023	and each core is clocked at 3.2 ghz. I thought there were 7 active cores for the ps3 gaming, but maybe not.