>
Playstation 3 Vs XBox 360
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
CPU
The Xbox 360 processor was designed to give game developers the power that they actually need, in an easy to use form. The Cell processor has impressive streaming floating-point power that is of limited use for games.
The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math, with lots of branches and random memory accesses. This code is best handled by a general purpose CPU with a cache, branch predictor, and vector unit.
The Cell's seven DSPs (what Sony calls SPEs) have no cache, no direct access to memory, no branch predictor, and a different instruction set from the PS3's main CPU. They are not designed for or efficient at general purpose computing. DSPs are not appropriate for game programming.
Xbox 360 has three general purpose CPU cores. The Cell processor has only one.
Xbox 360's CPUs has vector processing power on each CPU core. Each Xbox 360 core has 128 vector registers per hardware thread, with a dot product instruction, and a shared 1-MB L2 cache. The Cell processor's vector processing power is mostly on the seven DSPs.
Dot products are critical to games because they are used in 3D math to calculate vector lengths, projections, transformations, and more. The Xbox 360 CPU has a dot product instruction, where other CPUs such as Cell must emulate dot product using multiple instructions.
Cell's streaming floating-point work is done on its seven DSP processors. Since geometry processing is moved to the GPU, the need for streaming floating-point work and other DSP style programming in games has dropped dramatically.
Just like with the PS2's Emotion Engine, with its missing L2 cache, the Cell is designed for a type of game programming that accounts for a minor percentage of processing time.
Sony's CPU is ideal for an environment where 12.5% of the work is general-purpose computing and 87.5% of the work is DSP calculations. That sort of mix makes sense for video playback or networked waveform analysis, but not for games. In fact, when analyzing real games one finds almost the opposite distribution of general purpose computing and DSP calculation requirements. A relatively small percentage of instructions are actually floating point. Of those instructions which are floating-point, very few involve processing continuous streams of numbers. Instead they are used in tasks like AI and path-finding, which require random access to memory and frequent branches, which the DSPs are ill-suited to.
Based on measurements of running next generation games, only ~10-30% of the instructions executed are floating point. The remainders of the instructions are load, store, integer, branch, etc. Even fewer of the instructions executed are streaming floating point—probably ~5-10%. Cell is optimized for streaming floating-point, with 87.5% of its cores good for streaming floating-point and nothing else.
Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.
Game programmers do not want to spread their code over eight processors, especially when seven of the processors are poorly suited for general purpose programming. Evenly distributing game code across eight processors is extremely difficult.
GPU
Even ignoring the bandwidth limitations the PS3's GPU is not as powerful as the Xbox 360's GPU.
Below are the specs from Sony's press release regarding the PS3's GPU.
RSX GPU
550 MHz
Independent vertex/pixel shaders
51 billion dot products per second (total system performance)
300M transistors
136 "shader operations" per clock
The interesting ALU performance numbers are 51 billion dot products per second (total system performance), 300M transistors, and more than twice as powerful as the 6800 Ultra.
The 51 billions dot products per cycle were listed on a summary slide of total graphics system performance and are assumed to include the Cell processor. Sony's calculations seem to assume that the Cell can do a dot product per cycle per DSP, despite not having a dot product instruction.
However, using Sony's claim, 7 dot products per cycle * 3.2 GHz = 22.4 billion dot products per second for the CPU. That leaves 51 - 22.4 = 28.6 billion dot products per second that are left over for the GPU. That leaves 28.6 billion dot products per second / 550 MHz = 52 GPU ALU ops per clock.
It is important to note that if the RSX ALUs are similar to the GeForce 6800 ALUs then they work on vector4s, while the Xbox 360 GPU ALUs work on vector5s. The total programmable GPU floating point performance for the PS3 would be 52 ALU ops * 4 floats per op *2 (madd) * 550 MHz = 228.8 GFLOPS which is less than the Xbox 360's 48 ALU ops * 5 floats per op * 2 (madd) * 500 MHz= 240 GFLOPS.
With the number of transistors being slightly larger on the Xbox 360 GPU (330M) it's not surprising that the total programmable GFLOPs number is very close.
The PS3 does have the additional 7 DSPs on the Cell to add more floating point ops for graphics rendering, but the Xbox 360's three general purpose cores with custom D3D and dot product instructions are more customized for true graphics related calculations.
The 6800 Ultra has 16 pixel pipes, 6 vertex pipes, and runs at 400 MHz. Given the RSX's 2x better than a 6800 Ultra number and the higher frequency of the RSX, one can roughly estimate that it will have 24 pixel shading pipes and 4 vertex shading pipes (fewer vertex shading pipes since the Cell DSPs will do some vertex shading). If the PS3 GPU keeps the 6800 pixel shader pipe co-issue architecture which is hinted at in Sony's press release, this again gives it 24 pixel pipes* 2 issued per pipe + 4 vertex pipes = 52 dot products per clock in the GPU.
If the RSX follows the 6800 Ultra route, it will have 24 texture samplers, but when in use they take up an ALU slot, making the PS3 GPU in practice even less impressive. Even if it does manage to decouple texture fetching from ALU co-issue, it won't have enough bandwidth to fetch the textures anyways.
For shader operations per clock, Sony is most likely counting each pixel pipe as four ALU operations (co-issued vector+scalar) and a texture operation per pixel pipe and 4 scalar operations for each vector pipe, for a total of 24 * (4 + 1) + (4*4) = 136 operations per cycle or 136 * 550 = 74.8 GOps per second.
Given the Xbox 360 GPU's multithreading and balanced design, you really can't compare the two systems in terms of shading operations per clock. However, the Xbox 360's GPU can do 48 ALU operations (each can do a vector4 and scalar op per clock), 16 texture fetches, 32 control flow operations, and 16 programmable vertex fetch operations with tessellation per clock for a total of 48*2 + 16 + 32 + 16 = 160 operations per cycle or 160 * 500 = 80 GOps per second.
Overall, the automatic shader load balancing, memory export features, programmable vertex fetching, programmable triangle tesselator, full rate texture fetching in the vertex shader, and other "well beyond shader model 3.0" features of the Xbox 360 GPU should also contribute to overall rendering performance.
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.
Why does the Xbox 360 have such an extreme amount of bandwidth? Even the simplest calculations show that a large amount of bandwidth is consumed by the frame buffer. For example, with simple color rendering and Z testing at 550 MHz the frame buffer alone requires 52.8 GB/s at 8 pixels per clock. The PS3's memory bandwidth is insufficient to maintain its GPU's peak rendering speed, even without texture and vertex fetches.
The PS3 uses Z and color compression to try to compensate for the lack of memory bandwidth. The problem with Z and color compression is that the compression breaks down quickly when rendering complex next-generation 3D scenes.
HDR, alpha-blending, and anti-aliasing require even more memory bandwidth. This is why Xbox 360 has 256 GB/s bandwidth reserved just for the frame buffer. This allows the Xbox 360 GPU to do Z testing, HDR, and alpha blended color rendering with 4X MSAA at full rate and still have the entire main bus bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s left over for textures and vertices.
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.
However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games—by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services—will outperform the PlayStation 3.
-- BY Douglas C Perry
Right all of this arguing is silly. which console is better? well its obvious, the ps3 is better. The 360 has been out for alot longer now and its already topped its power within a year. Which is not a good thing.Also many of you are having problems with it's breakdown as is does not contain an adequate cooling system, unlike the ps3 which to my knowledge so far has had no problems. So all you moaners and groaners that think the ps3 isnt doing well give it a chance!Its only been out a few months, and your already starting to winge about it!.I have played on both consoles and I find the ps3 graphics more superior than the 360. Personally I like the design although am aware that some people dont. I don't see the point of launching the xbox 360 elite as the only difference is the hard drive which is 100GB and the console being black.In my opinion The ps3 is better because
1) you dont have to pay £40 per year just to play live play.
2) you dont have to keep buying batteries for the remotes.
3) its got a bult in blu-ray player.
4)its not mega noisy like the xbox 360.
5) it does'nt get mega hot like the 360.
6) It has a far smaller adapter than the 360.
i have to agree with phantom. i was staying at a friends place and we were playing some xbox 360 at about 1:30 AM and it started making some wierd noises and it was laud it woke up everyone in the house. the xbox 360 is not actually true HD it only goes up to 1080i which is shit compared to 1080p the only bad thing about the ps3 is the controllers break much easier than the xbox' if u want to buy a good product for money, get a ps3. because a blu ray dvd player costs about as much and you can play games on a ps3
Yeah Right! I have friends that is working for both Microsoft and Sony. My friend from Sony told me that he likes the X-box 360 better but my friend from Microsoft told me that the PS3 is better.
For my very sad experience... I had my first X-box 360 4 months after the release date and was very exited about it and it was a good buy, but after 2 months of usage it failed me and gave me the Ring of 3 Red lights, I thought that I got an X-box 360 that has a defective hardware and thought that it was only an oddity, so after the release date of Gears of War I purchased my second X-box 360 but beleive me it went out having the 3 Red lights after 1 month of usage... I am totally fucked up... Having 2 X-box 360 that has the same problem... This system should be recalled... Now I had my PS3 since the release date and never got any problems with it and it is way to cool and way to reliable in terms of durability.
FYI... I opened my defective X-box 360 and my 60 GB PS3 and discovered the reason why the PS3 is very bulky.. It is because of it's cooling fan... It ate up alot of the console's space and I think that was a wise decision from Sony. So i suggest that if you are going to buy an X-box 360 you have to get an airconditioner and attach it on the side of the X-box 360.
Mr. Ashish2000, you might be surprised to know that PS3 does not need cache per se. That is because PS3 has got XDR DRAM whose througput is fast enough for the processor. The XDR DRAM is clocked at die speed. So, do you still want a cache my friend?
I would have to say with all boldness that the 360 is the better machine.Playing the 360 Elite and the PS3 side by side with HDMI at 1080p. The 360 looks the better between the two Sega Tennis games.Why is Virtua Fighters 5 looking graphicaly better on the 360?
Why is it talk about the graphic power of the PS3? Far as I can see, 360 has the better graphics, and performs better, even in the same games. What about Fight night round 3? It came out on 360 first,It should of been better looking on the PS3.But it wasn't. Same with F.E.A.R.,Icon,Call Of Duty 3 washed out graphics jaggies, and slow up.
Why because 360 has the better dev tools.John Carmack prefers 360 because not only the devs but the architexture of the 360.(Alot of game developers running to 360 because of the easier dev tools where they are able to get more out of the 360 and costing them less money)
PC developers even prefer 360 due to being easier to port PC games to it than the PS3.Sony needs to give out better devs so they can make since of what you are programming on that alien hardware and make there games better than what they are.PS2 toy story graphics, please not even on the PS3.I have yet to see games on the PS3 that look better than Mass Effect, yes even MGS4.All of the Sony fanboys are still stuck on the E3 2005 Demos of CG graphics from Kill Zone and others.The best Graphics right now on the PS3 is ninja Gaiden Sigma, and looks awsome.
Did you know that Gears Of War could not be on the PS3 due to lack of memory? It could be on the PS3 but would not look like the 360 version. So with limited ram, how can games look better than Gears of War on the PS3?They will look sharp, but graphicaly?Unless somehow developers learn how to use the other 256MBs of ram.Yes I know the PS3 is not at it's full power right? Epics Cliffy B stated after the succes of Selling 3 million units of Gears Of War, the 360 is still capabile of more.
what of Sony traders. Former Sony game series Ace Combat 6 will be on 360 only.DMC4 will be on 360.GTA IV.Tell Ubisoft why they are not makeing SplinterCell:Conviction for the PS3.But to be fair PS3 has some awsome titles on the way in wich I have seen nothing that still looks better than Gears of War or the upcomming Mass Effect.If Sony at E3 (hype) was gloating about the Graphics being nothing yet seen before on a console, where is it?I have so much to say on this matter but i am rambleing to long.
What is most important about this article to the technically uninclined:
Developers (all developers) can push the limits of the 360. Therefore allowing this "powerful" architecture to shine (and despite it all, it is powerful).
The ps3 for all its graphical might (fact:ps3 > 360) will see frution of it's technology when sony's own developers (or supported)figure out their own proprietary technology period. How long will that take?
The technically inferior yet still powerful 360 delivers the "total gaming experience" (on-line experience + immersive gameplay + outstanding visuals) now and into the forseeable future (lifespan of product).
Although I would rather avoid subjective arguments here goes:
I have both consoles. Both running on seperate 32' 720p/1080i capable monitors. When running two comparable franchises (GOW/ microsoft and ROFM/sony) simultaneously in a side by side comparison ROFM looks sharper (resolution). GOW's graphics however look deeper, richer and smoother. The art work is technically more impressive in Gears comparatively (artwork=subjective sorry). I am running the 360 on component and the ps3 via HDMI (i suspect this may be the cause for the edge in sharpness). From a developers stand point this comparison is irrelevant and obtuse. However it should strike a cord with fanboys in both camps.
360 maxed out (GOW best graphics PC/console to date. Thats one hell of a graphics celing)? Maybe. Cliffy B (Epic/GOW father) stated himself there is more the 360 can do.
Either way it will be interesting to see how well developers adapt to the ps3 architecture. CRYSIS on pc will change that. HAZE on ps3 looks promising.
Im not sure where the info for this article came from but from a pure performance standpoint the PS3 far out performs the Xbox 360. Granted, the PS3 may be more difficult to develop for and take full advantage of, but this will change over time. If you look at the PS3 in comparison to the top of the line PC you’ll under stand the advantages of the having the 7 “DSP” like cores in conjunction to the general purposed core rather than 3 general purpose cores. Unless your doing a lot of Word Processing, Music encoding, or video editing your not going to see much benefit from 3 General purpose cores. Rather than regurgitate what someone else spent a lot of time composing I would direct you to the following link… http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858 (Great article with tons of tech info).
This guy lays down a lot of good facts about the PS3 hardware. Being an engineer that has worked on projects for both the X-box 360 and PS3 I have to say that the X360 may be easy to develop for thanks to its SDK, but the PS3 has a lot more power and potential when it comes to doing 3D Graphics. Keep in mind General Purpose processors are just that, General Purpose. If you plan on pushing a lot of polygons the symmetric processor cores on the PS3 are great for handling all the mathematical calculations required for doing some of the more complex 3D rendering techniques. The best way is to think of it as having one General Purpose core to handle basic core logic execution with 6 available co-processors to handle all the complex math required for building 3D scenes and handling AI before it is sent to the video core for rendering.
On a side note, the X360 is using a unified memory architecture. An upside is that memory can be allocated as needed. On a down side, latency is high and bandwidth is usable bandwidth is lower. I could go on forever with technical details but I highly recommend reading the article at the link I pasted above.
a great gaming consol is about the games, so hands down th 360 is the clear winner,gear of war,halo,forza,fable,pro evo, and now exclusive rights to grand theft auto,also the games that appear on both consoles such as fight night and need for speed and so on,the performance and graphics are superior on the 360. the best thing i founf with the 360 is the online play ,which on the ps3 is near non existant, apparently only 3 of the 30 or so launch games have online capabillities, in what way is that next gen? oh and theres the price tag.
i have i mean had a ps3 .. to be honest i sold it.. the system messed up on me after one month.. i dont care how great something is but when it cost me 900 at the time and it f@%^k up after 1 month i no longer want it.. sony has no excuse for that.. i played all resistence and finished and genji 2 and rr7.. then i got an Xbox 360 and played gears of war, dead or alive 4, blue dragon jp, and lost planet on a hdtv at 1080i i can honestly say these games are far better and gears of war looks far better then resistance in a number of ways... one thing that did impress me about the ps3 was that in resistence when i killed someone there body never disapeared not once even when i left the location and came back. and there are a lot of bodies more then 30+ so that was kinda cool.. but on gears of war the locations look so much better and the overall apearance is great.. if you have a chance to play lost planet then you should know what i mean by great graphics.............also i am not a tech fan i am a game fan.. but graphics due help and while some of my favorite titles are coming to the ps3... there are even more great titles come to the xbox 360.....if you ask me it comes down to cost not graphical power because to the naked eye both systems have good graphics.. but for me xbox360 has much more to offer in regards to its pricing and future capabilities
yea thats official...so official that entire statement came right out of the first page of the ps3 brochure. so, i'll refrain from "reconising" and RECOGNIZE that you either work for sony, are an idiot, or both.
well it wouldnt matter if it was pro MS, because everyone who argues against it so stupidly is pro sony, so its hard not to get a biased opinion. but they come out to the same anyways. 360 is better at throwing everything together for the big picture, while the ps3 is more fine-tuned, more specific. not to mention, the ps3's memory bandwith is way to low for its processing power, in which sony was completely idiodic for not changing. hence why the 360 gets better rattings, because its capable of handling its own power, while the ps3 is not.
and that was not taken from microsoft. it may be on their site, but in no way was it theirs. its all ign. and i dont believe those people are biased, now are they?
though this article was total plagarism. it does say the author. who by the way, is apart of ign!
omg, who would have thought.
but of course microsoft has a larger cpu system. its freakin microsoft. but the 3 cores and the cell processor are focused on different things. the 360 gets its ass handed to itself when it comes to video processing and other things related to that.
of course, the ps3 has a higher float point than the 360, double actually. but since they didnt put enough memory bandwith into it, its lacking the ability to use its total power that could be used. all of the ps3's systems are designed to work the best at float point, but they cant reach that desired level. if it had the 256 gb that 360 has, it was totally annilate 360 altogether.
but they didnt do that, now did they?
and for the idiot who said rfom looks better then gears of war, of course it does! halo 2 looked better then halo, didnt it? of course a later game looks better then the older one if its properly designed.
the guy who said 360 is more related too a computer, haha yea of course. microsft would most def be a pc whore like that, wouldnt they?
U want graphics, the PS3 is for u as long as u dont mind shelling out the extra 200$. All i have to say is that gaming consoles such as these are for fun right? So, id definetely buy the 360 coz it may not have the graphics but it has some really fun games unlike sony(they have so less titles out in the market that its not even worth buyin at the moment). Still, if ur not satisfied about buyin the 360, wait for some months to see if sony actually comes out with some nice titles that are able to use sony's awesome power which i trully agree is incomparable to that of the xbox. I agree with the other reviews that ps3 is 2x as powerful as the 360.
So folks, FUN AND VALUE FOR MONEY= XBOX 360
GRAPHICS AND SHOWING OFF = PS3
Hope this review was helpful to make up ur mind.....
Thank you.
Ill admit that the xbox has a far superior online capabilities, but that is the only thing I can think of that it is superior in. Even though it will take awile for sony to catch up to microsoft's online network, sony's huge library of ps1 and ps2 games will make the ps3 network very appealing. Many point out that the ps3 has "no games" but the system has only been out for a few months. The same can be seen when the xbox first released. Nothing but sports games and current gen ports.
As game fans we can all speculate as to which is better, PS3 or the 360 but without knowing exactly what is required when it comes to creating content for these systems, only developers are really standing in a position to tell us, not just which is better (which on it's own, when you honestly think about it is nothing more than an argument for fanboys on both sides) but which system, on average comes out on top for overall ease of use in game development, future potential, hardware and software costs and user features such as HD support and online compatibility. The biggest concern for game developers is ease of use when it comes to development. This link is an article by a game developer who creates content for both systems and as I have already said, I believe only developers are really in a position to offer us any definitive answer that can help us navigate our way through the quagmire of technical jargon that both sides will throw at us in order to swindle us of our hard earned $. All we really need to ask ourselves is "What do I want in a console and which one is going to give that to me?" Hopefully this article or any others like it that you might come across will help you find the answers that you seek. I've already made my choice with my wallet. Good Luck.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-348-1.htm
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?cpage=1
This is a completely unbiased report on a more intensive break down of both consoles. The PS3 is more powerful in terms of the CPU, but the 360's triple main core, gpu, and extra memory make it far more efficient for gaming applications. Read through the whole report and don't hurt yourselves in the process. Not to mention that after everything is said and done, you get the console for $200 less, soon to be $300 after MS's price cut coming sometime in spring/summer.
Those people who are jumping up and down saying this article is wrong are the ones who ran out and paid 1500$ or more 2 months ago.
They thought they would be the coolest kids on the block but now they are by thereselves playing a few games while there friends are all on xbox live with 100's of games to choose from. For what the "first people" to get a ps3 spend, the 360 people spent way less for the system, bunch of games, live subscription, pizza and had lots left over.
Some say the ps3 is better, some the 360, some the same. But if they both are so close and people cant agree what one is better I would say they are probably near the same in end performance. So why spend the extra money on the ps3 since the 360 has so many more games and players? In time the ps3 will get more games, but since it is harder to program for(than the 360, pc, ps2, etc...due to processor differences) some games may never make it to the ps3 because the wont be enough people to buy them and because of the extra cost.
When the gen 2 360 comes out this summer with the hdmi port and lower power cpu that puts out less heat for whats expected to be the same price that will be one less reason for someone to pick a ps3. I just dont see why to pay more for a ps3 that does the same thing as a 360 for half the price.
Well its true that the xbox has more game but look how long it has been out. When the 360 was first released they did not have too many hot titles as well. As for the 360 did you know that if you purchased the core model and bought the premium upgrades that you would spend more? Some 360 games require a whole memory card to save(memory cards cost alot). Ps3 could have easily made a 350$ core model but it would be like the xbox 360 core model which is like half an xbox360. Even with the weaker playstation network how many great titles have they released over the years with their ps1 and ps2 consoles. Sooner or later those great titles will be available on the network.
I have Ps3, i have 360. I will just say after using the ps3 you will want to sell ur 360 just to buy more ps3 games. IDK where this guy got his info from, but its wrong.
You can talk about all the specs until you turn blue, but WHERE ARE THE GAMES???? What games do you have to show for that proves how awesome the PS3 is supposed to be? NOTHING. That's right, nothing! Sony's ONLY advantage over MS was the system exclusives, which is why the PS2 "won" the current gen battle. But guess what? Just about every system exclusive for the PS3 has been officially announced to be released for the 360 also. What does that tell you? Developers know that the 360 is the superior product. Plus, GEARS OF WAR, HALO 3, BIOSHOCK, MASS EFFECT. Need I say more? PS3 got pwned!
I am sure you asked where are the games when you first bought your xbox as well. The answer there arent many hot titles when a console is first released. Second of all, the games you named are mostly all shooters. Though sony has lost a couple of exclusives, konami, squaresoft, and namco are still loyal to sony. If many titles are being released to both systems why not grab the sony and be able to play games from the big dogs as well as titles released on xbox360 as well. If price is the issue theres a 100 dollar discount if you trade in a ps2. A ps3 will cost the same as the 360.
Games like: Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, and resistance makes the ps3 fun for everyone not just shooter enthusiasts like fighterforjc.
''the xbox 360 has 3 times more general purpose than the ps3'' this i belive is retarded it does have technically speaking 3 times more of ''general purpose'' than the ps3 now ask yourself this what does general purpose actually mean ? only because it has 3 (''cpu''central proc, general purpose) cores dosent mean it could outperform the cell the spe's take a trmendous workload off the main core......
the spe's arent made for gaming? hahaha , why not? it does take coders longer to take advantage of the spu's but that dosent mean i will not learn to take advantage of the spu's faster by the end of the year , goes to show you that the cell is actual next gen, even intel has plans for something like the cell 15yrs from now...
im bored not even gona bother correcting the rest of this post... this post does have lots of errors.
for the ignorant ones please ignore it
ps.the fact remains that sony is behemoth not only bluray is being sponsored by more companies including BGM, COLOMBIA PICTURES, SONY PICTURES ETC and there working on a 200gb bluray disc, wow how many extra dvd disc's is xbox gona need? the only thing is 360 has the gmaes but the 360 does not match the horsepower and potential of the ps3 and thats a fact...
and remember when amd bought ati ? because ati lost so much $$$ againts nvdia's 7800 card ?? even there so called cross fire dosent amp the power of sli...
boo microsoft for releasing manipulative info
boo ati they sucked for 2004-2005 amd had to buy them befor going bankrupt
wow...what a plagiarising ******* i mean, i wonder how much Microsoft paid for this?
i think u lick bill gate's butt i have ;ike 5 friend who have had their xbox smoke up i think u need to go back to school then come back and relist ur facts
Sounds like you guys work for Sony's damage control! The article proves beyond any doubt that the PS3 is an inferior product. I suggest YOU do real research and work for a more reputable company!
Other members have commented that this article is pro-Microsoft. Well, I would hope so. It is a virtual word for word copy of a press release issued on May 20, 2005 by Microsoft giving their spin on PS3's power points.
Word for word copying of someone else's work without giving credit to the original author is called plagiarism and, in some places, is a crime. Although in this case I'm sure Microsoft is more than happy to have someone else use their words and represent it as independent editorial comment.
It is unfortunate that the author chose to take personal credit for analysis that is clearly not his own. It puts the credibility of all posts on this site in question.
If you want to see the original, unedited statement by Microsoft, you can find it here:
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
seems like ashish works as a scavenger @ MICROSOFT ...............LOL
AND WOW THE WAY HE LOOKS, HMMM! NOW I KNOW WHY ARE SPANISH BULLS " OUT OF THEIR WORK "
In response to the first person who decided to make a comment and act like a fanboy at the same time.
You said the following and since you think you're right, try getting your facts straight before attempting to correct someone elses facts.
"While this was blatantly a pro MS article, the author still managed to get wrong the 360's details - the Xenon processor in the 360 is actually 3 dual core units, giving 6 processor cores all together"
Hey ding-dong-dummy! The Xenon only has three symmetrical cores. Each core has two threads, for a total of 6 threads, not six processor cores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_%28processor%29
This is one of the most uneducated looks at the next gen consoles. There are so many mistakes I can't even BEGIN to list the errors, let alone the lack of knowledge of game engineering. A few glaring errors:
The SPEs of the Cell processor are in fact fully fledged 128-bit SIMD RISC processors. They are based on the PPC instruction core, optimised to be fed by a constant flow of data. They have no cache as such, but have a 256KB local store, which operates at the full processor bandwidth, negating the need for a cache. They also have access to main memory, via the EIB, at 3.2Ghz, again negating the need for a cache. The SPEs can perform 4 x integer, 4 floating point, or 2 x double precision floating point each clock cycle, making them as fast at integer operations as floating point. The SPEs can be fed with a constant flow of data from main memory without needing a cache as the memory operates at the full bandwidth of the processor.
This in fact makes it far more suited to games than a general purpose processor: An general purpose CPU is suited to a desktop processing environment because it has to swap between many different tasks - of very different natures. However, a games console generally performs the same tasks continuously - the cell allows each task to run on its own core and do its job without interruption. The Cell in the case of the PS3 can run 9 simultaneous threads - 2 cores on the PPE and the 7 enabled SPEs. All can run the same machine code. Any dynamic changes in procesing will be handled by the PPE, leaving the 7 SPEs to carry on number crunching
While this was blatantly a pro MS article, the author still managed to get wrong the 360's details - the Xenon processor in the 360 is actually 3 dual core units, giving 6 processor cores all together, however these are optimised for a desktop environment, not the constant numbercrunching of a games console.
Both are made by IBM, and given that IBM chose to use 16000 Cells in their newest supercomputer which will be capable of 1 petaflop (1000 Teraflops) and not the Xenon, says just which is the higher performance processor.
I'm not going to go through and correct the further errors of the article, I feel I have written enough. I would encourage the author to do further research rather than writing biased wishful thinking.
I just traded my XBOX 360 in for a PS3. I don't care if they have the HAL9000 under the 360's hood. When it comes to reliability the PS3 wins. There are plenty of BLOGs and articles about XBOX owners who have gotten the "rings of death" (power circle on XBOX turns red then BYE, BYE Xbox.) Plenty of stories of XBOX's going supernova. Disk trays not working or even reading the disks properly w/o having to eject and reinsert the disk 30 freakin' times for it to get a read.
With regard to the PS3 there haven't been that many hardware related issues. Plus it plays Bluerays. My PS3 was $499. That is the cheapest Blue Ray player in town that happens to play HD games. Not even the XBOX Elite play HD DVD w/o buying the $199 add on.
In addition you get standard built in WIFI. (another $100 XBOX add on).
2 HDMI's (Now only available on the XBOX Elite)
SD slot, memory disk slot and 6 USB ports.
PS3 is better in terms of overall value.