Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Del Boy]

My son said to show you this get ready for an earful he is convinced 360 is better and found all the actual specs and he says it shows ps3 is not as good but is still good. :-?

360
----

So it has 3 CPU's (Cores)
2 Hardware threads per Core/CPU
each core has its own cache (like any single CPU has)
512MB of memory of wich 32MB is used for the OS
There is only 1 memory pool meaning the entire 512 is availlable to the system (cept for the OS mem) without performance drawbacks)
10MB embedded ram in the GPU (makes tiling possible wich makes fee AA possible or could be used to do Dx10 like features)
The GPU is a new design a generation ahead of the 7800 GPU used in the PS3
The OS uses 3 percent of one 1 core

Has a GPU designed for the console (its the first GPU on the market with unified shaders and the only one in excistence with embeded ram)

The Xenon and Cell are both OOO (out of order proccecors) and infact from the same family,hence why the 360 CPu can be setup and programed for like wa Cell CPU if the programmers chooses too)


PS3
----
The Ps3 is actualy 1 core and 7 SPE's (Hence the name Cell as the SPE's are the cells) for wich one SPE is dedicated and locked to the OS so it is has 6 SPe's for games availlable
(The weight of the OS on the Cell CPU has never been disclosed).

each SPE (Cell) has its own tiny bit of cache.

Its a 256mb availllable for the CPU and 256 for the GPU.these 2 mem pools can talk to each other but that has performance drawbacks.

The GPU is a of the shelve 7800GTX GPU from the PC market with a fixed shader model.(Fitted as a last minute decision ,Plans for 2 Cell CPU's failed since one CELL is not good enough to replace a genuine GPU)

The OS uses 84MB of memory (used to be 96MB) so it has split and less memory availlable system wide.So effectivly it has the least amount of memory available for actual games this gen.(This is why textures suffer)

[Admin]

I will leave Mark/Jaime to discuss the deeper technical issues, but in simple cold hard facts the PS3 is way ahead of the 360 in processing power.
That said, the 360 is an excellent piece of kit.

Those that say otherwise are being overly brand loyal.
I am neither as I have both (ann a Wii which I love!)

Right now the PS3 has nothing to really show it off as I gather the coding is much more complex than that for the 360. Hence many of the current games are written for the 360 then ported over to the PS3.
End result, they look prety much identical.

As other have said, it will take 18 months or so before we see what it is really capable of. However GT5 may give us an idea...

[Del Boy]

Fable 2 and alans wake and gears of war 2 will make the 360 better and show off it's true power look at those specs and see. Please note that my son is intent on proving that the 360 is better  

[Del Boy]

Now he said that GT5 is amazing he played it at his friends, most multi-platform games look better on the 360 not all of them but 70%, PS3 will show what it's capable of with things like GT5 and the next getaway, but when alans wake and Fable 2 come out you will see what the 360 is capable of. Personally i think they are both good and in the end it's a gaming console.

[korum]

LOL he really does love his xbox.

Ive had the same arguments with mates at work who think the 360 is better than the ps3, but to really understand which is more powerfull you need to understand the way that computer componants work and communicate together

The processors are the same in terms of ghz (thats what most people compare them on) but the cell uses it in a more efficient way.

while the 360 has 1mb of cache that has to be shared across its processor the ps3 has 256kb dedicated to each cell with a further 512 l2 cache so actually has 2.304mb but because its dedicated to each cell theres no "que" effect when the cell requires it (the 360's cores have to fight each other for cache)

Same story with the video memory, while the ps3 has dedicated memory the 360 shares what memory it has between all the componants in the system. Yes the ps3 uses more memory for its OS but the type of memory used is xdr which is more efficient, This is what makes the ps3 abit more powerfull than the 360 is the memory bandwidth (speed at which the componants can talk to each other) available in the 360 is 22.4 gb/s while the ps3 has 25.6 gb/s.

The optical drives of each unit has to be taken into account as well, while the 360 uses dvd's with a capicity of 9gb the ps3's bluray drive uses disks capable of storing 54gb which in the future will allow developers to make bigger and better games (when they get off there backsides and start programming for it properly)
while im sure Fable 2 and alans wake and gears of war 2 will make the 360 better and show off it's true power, whis will be its maximum it can preduce while titles like gt5 are still now where near what the ps3 is capible of.

When you add all that to the fact that the ps3 is designed not only to be a gaming console but a media machine and can do 1080p play bluray films and is making use of the psp (like remote access) it makes the ps3 a better console.

[Del Boy]

Yeah he still won't budge mate he said Rainbow 6 vegas 2 look at what look better they look similar but the PS3 has worse lighting etc, the textures on the PS3 suffer and the 360 has 10mb of EDRAM which is a more powerful source of memory making fee AA possible, the 360's graphics unit can also use DX10 which the PS3's can't, the way the PS3's memory talk to each other during games has performance drawbacks, if you look at the split memory for both console's the PS3 has less split memory avaliable for games, the GPU in the 360 is a generation ahead of the 7800 GTX in the PS3. PS3 has split ram, while 360 can use all ram for textures, PS3 has to address the CPU ram to do that, whih is hardly viable
And indeed, 360 has 3 EQUAL CPU cores, like 3x the power of one core, like in PC multicore chips.it means that the PS3 has less ram to work with at certain times... in graphic intensive times, the ps3 is limited to 256mb of vram and it can access the cpu ram at a cost... (roughly 40-50% cost equivalent in memory and bandwidth cost to and from the cpu because the ram can only be accessed through the cpu) so... if there was no other activities going on, and only graphic generations, there would be roughly 384mb of vram available and 0 cpu ram available... but in the Xbox 360's case, it would be the same situation without the cost of accessing the ram. so in the same case, it would have 348mb of vram and 128mb of cpu ram available...
the second scenarios is during loading... this requires as much ram as possible because it is being taken from the disk, goes through the cpu and stored temporarily on the ram... this means that graphics won't be much of use and there would be minimal ram being used for video processing... in this case, PS3 would be limited to 256mb of ram flat while the Xbox 360 would have almost the entire 512mb of ram for this buffer/loading...
Plus the 10MB EDRAM free both bandwidth and physical ram for games. Also the same games eg rainbow 6 vegas 2 which were developed from scratch on the PS3 as well as the 360 PS3 runs at 34FPS and the 360 runs at 62FPS.Developers have also said that the PS3 is a nightmare to develop for due to blu-ray coding being harder than DVD9 also due to it's 256 of ram and 256 of split ram devs hate that and all the developers say something similar to the ps3's ram being deicated is very annoying as it can make load times a lot longer and it doesn't have 8 cores... it has ONE core and 7 SPEs...the SPES aren't full cores... they have no instructions and a tiny cache...256kb of cache divided between the 7 SPEs. I'm not typing anymore my hand is hurting now he does love his 360 even though it's broke. Strange as he want's a PS3 for christmas for blu-ray :-? But an Xbox Elite for his birthday

[tunnie]

from a gamers point of view, xbox hands down for me, the controllers are  much easier, more accurate...

With the xbox now costing just £160... its a PS3 killer.

Facts remain, xbox 360 outsells PS3 - 3:1 in every country except Japan!

For at least the comming year, the graphics will be much the same between them.

[Del Boy]

To be honest in my opinion not from my son's point of view mine the 360 is a better gaming machine the PS3 is a better multi media machine but it's a gaming console not a media console from what my son has shown me in specs i would say the 360 looks better to be honest. But gran turismo 5 looks absolutely amazing, but fable 2 looks amazing too.

[Rich_v6_Estate_Elite]

I'm not a games player but the below link is an interesting use of PS3's and gives another perspective to there power!

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02/28/ps3s_put_to_use_simulating_blackholes/

[Del Boy]

16 blimey that a lot of money, on another not cops with camera's is on itv1

[Kieran]

Mt Xbox is going strong and i have had it for a year now, I play PGR3 alot so if anyone fancies a race online my Xbox name is Hans Device

[TheBoy]

LOL he really does love his xbox.

Ive had the same arguments with mates at work who think the 360 is better than the ps3, but to really understand which is more powerfull you need to understand the way that computer componants work and communicate together

The processors are the same in terms of ghz (thats what most people compare them on) but the cell uses it in a more efficient way.

while the 360 has 1mb of cache that has to be shared across its processor the ps3 has 256kb dedicated to each cell with a further 512 l2 cache so actually has 2.304mb but because its dedicated to each cell theres no "que" effect when the cell requires it (the 360's cores have to fight each other for cache)

Same story with the video memory, while the ps3 has dedicated memory the 360 shares what memory it has between all the componants in the system. Yes the ps3 uses more memory for its OS but the type of memory used is xdr which is more efficient, This is what makes the ps3 abit more powerfull than the 360 is the memory bandwidth (speed at which the componants can talk to each other) available in the 360 is 22.4 gb/s while the ps3 has 25.6 gb/s.

The optical drives of each unit has to be taken into account as well, while the 360 uses dvd's with a capicity of 9gb the ps3's bluray drive uses disks capable of storing 54gb which in the future will allow developers to make bigger and better games (when they get off there backsides and start programming for it properly)
while im sure Fable 2 and alans wake and gears of war 2 will make the 360 better and show off it's true power, whis will be its maximum it can preduce while titles like gt5 are still now where near what the ps3 is capible of.

When you add all that to the fact that the ps3 is designed not only to be a gaming console but a media machine and can do 1080p play bluray films and is making use of the psp (like remote access) it makes the ps3 a better console.

The PS3 had the potential to be a good console but had to be compromised for marketing reasons, mainly as it was nowhere near ready to be released on time.

To understand my Sony released it prematurely (and henced compromised) you need to look at Sony's background.

Sony had 'bet the company' on the success of Bluray (another as yet unfinished product).  Unfortunately for Sony, Toshiba's complete HD-DVD was lanuched, and was cheaper than Bluray.  To win the HD war, Sony needed to get PS3 on the shelves (as it was always going to be the cheapest BR player).  Also, Sony have a massive brand loyalty, moreso than any other electronics/tech company.  I used to be one of the 'Sony Sheep', but thats another story  .  Because of this brand following, the PS3 would always sell, purely on the back of PS/PS2 customers. This was their strategy to get (even technically compromised) PS3s in the home and stand a chance in the HD wars.  This is also the reason that PS3s are being sold at a loss - Sony really, really, really needed to get PS3s in homes at any cost.

Had Sony have waited until the PS3 was ready as the designers had wanted, HD-DVD would have been too well entrenched, BR would have failed, and Sony would have died with it.  Shame  

It is not really possible to say which is better, as we haven't seen either consoles' potential yet.  Halo3 is pretty impressive on the Xbox though.


I wouldn't own a PS3 purely on principal.  I wouldn't own an Xbox for games either.  My Xbox is purely for MCE, and as an MCE Extender, nothing touches a 360.