360 vs ps3

[Peeps42]

Really i wanna know what you think about these two next gen systemes graphics gameplay whatnot...

[Kingcarcas]

Services : Microsoft, Sony doesn't even come close.

Games: Right now, Microsoft, but i'm sure Sony will get their own great exclusive titles.

Hardware: Xbox360 is superior*.


*Except for maybe Folding@Home:banana:

[ownage]

xbox360-vs-ps3 gfx compared (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html?tag=topslot;title;2&om_act=convert&click=topslot)

I would go xbox360, because of the graphics, the price, and the games :D

[vengance_01]

I agree right now Xbox 360 is just a better all around console with better games, xbox live which is seriously great, not to mention you can buy it, and lastly price:D

[Lestat]

one of the comments made by one of the retards about the NFS Carbon was that its not fair, that the PS3 was using a direct 360 port.
if they had used the PS3 hardware.. blah lbah blah another little whiney cry baby :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing that once againt he PS3 got dueced by the 360

direct port thats freakin hilarious.

if that dummy and all the others posting crap like that had taken the time to go thru all the pictures ,, and i mean all of them they would have noticed the PS3 is using some HEAVY and i mean HEAVY blurring to make up for the fact that the system cant do the graphics at the same level the 360 does. pretty darn close on a few of those shots but in every single picture shown you can clearly see massive blurring going on.
the lighting is also not as good.
but the 360 appeared to have an overly high amount of brightness and or contract in many of its games. there were games where the darker PS3 looks more appropriate. notice i did not say better, its more appropriate for the scene.

overall they are darn close and a single frame still image is no way to compare, im sorry to say. but it does give a general idea.
single frames are never as good as the real in motion game. but again its a start and a start that puts the 360 defiantely into the lead.

the 1st and last pictures show very drastic differences. the last picture shows an insane difference in texture quality and once again the 360 just smokes the ps3. the ps3 is running horrible filtering and texture resolution.
so much that it looks like the XBOX 1 version.

tiger shows the ps3 using slightly more tree and ground foliage but looking closer you see the same ol blurring to make the system handle the graphics easier.



What everyone seems to neglect is that these games are direct ports. They were built for the 360's architecture. If they had been built for the PS3's then they wouldn't look as good on 360. The real problem with the PS3 is the stuff the developers have to work with. Games would look equally good on both systems if every single game was custom made for the system it was going to run on. Developers are more likely to support 360 because it's easier to make games for. Less effort + 360 = Great Looking Game. Less effort + PS3 = Crappy looking game. Simply saying that developers have to do more work to get great graphics on both systems. Personally I don't think they released a polished PS3. I think they should have waited a few more months and fixed all the architectural drawbacks, such as small amount of memory, small pipelines, and slow disc read speed.


this a-hole posted this in every game shot i think.
what a retard, this dumb a$$ has no clue what he is talking about.
the games are not direct 360 ports. if you really wanna get technical you cant just convert 360 code into ps3 code they took the raw code, more than likely the PC code and converted to each console using its own tools which utilize its own architecture.

this is the type of fanboyism by people who have no clue what they are talking about.

i find it so freaking funny and yet childish and frustrating.

it has been said by some of THE top designers, and guru's of the Game industry. the 360 is more powerful on the graphics end, that is undisputed as of now. 6 months from now 1 yr from now who knows, but it is within sony's history that it takes a year for their consoles to truly start opening up and programmers to get a grip on the architecture.

360 all the way, from the games, to the console, to the online and Live experience.
oh and the price point, and the fact that you will actually be able to buy one,, hows that

[Soulburner]

Usually true but there were a few exceptions for PS2 launch titles. Gran Turismo 3 and Final Fantasy X come to mind (not sure if FF was out at launch, but soon after). Those were early games that ended up being some of the best looking, and best overall to date.

[eXceeded]

one of the comments made by one of the retards about the NFS Carbon was that its not fair, that the PS3 was using a direct 360 port.
if they had used the PS3 hardware.. blah lbah blah another little whiney cry baby :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing that once againt he PS3 got dueced by the 360

direct port thats freakin hilarious.

if that dummy and all the others posting crap like that had taken the time to go thru all the pictures ,, and i mean all of them they would have noticed the PS3 is using some HEAVY and i mean HEAVY blurring to make up for the fact that the system cant do the graphics at the same level the 360 does. pretty darn close on a few of those shots but in every single picture shown you can clearly see massive blurring going on.
the lighting is also not as good.
but the 360 appeared to have an overly high amount of brightness and or contract in many of its games. there were games where the darker PS3 looks more appropriate. notice i did not say better, its more appropriate for the scene.

overall they are darn close and a single frame still image is no way to compare, im sorry to say. but it does give a general idea.
single frames are never as good as the real in motion game. but again its a start and a start that puts the 360 defiantely into the lead.

the 1st and last pictures show very drastic differences. the last picture shows an insane difference in texture quality and once again the 360 just smokes the ps3. the ps3 is running horrible filtering and texture resolution.
so much that it looks like the XBOX 1 version.

tiger shows the ps3 using slightly more tree and ground foliage but looking closer you see the same ol blurring to make the system handle the graphics easier.





this a-hole posted this in every game shot i think.
what a retard, this dumb a$$ has no clue what he is talking about.
the games are not direct 360 ports. if you really wanna get technical you cant just convert 360 code into ps3 code they took the raw code, more than likely the PC code and converted to each console using its own tools which utilize its own architecture.

this is the type of fanboyism by people who have no clue what they are talking about.

i find it so freaking funny and yet childish and frustrating.

it has been said by some of THE top designers, and guru's of the Game industry. the 360 is more powerful on the graphics end, that is undisputed as of now. 6 months from now 1 yr from now who knows, but it is within sony's history that it takes a year for their consoles to truly start opening up and programmers to get a grip on the architecture.

360 all the way, from the games, to the console, to the online and Live experience.
oh and the price point, and the fact that you will actually be able to buy one,, hows that
QFT, thank you for reiterating what I have been trying to get across for months!!

[leejsmith]

I think it all depends on the software and what you want to play.
each console will have titles not made for the other and these will be the stand out ones.
it would make sense if your going to develope something for both systems to not duplicate everything and have common elements for both systems so these will be close and for those the 360 would a be better option just from cost.

as a 360 owner i think it's a very good console and gears of war has got me playing games again after 6 months of nothing that got me wanting to get home from work and finish that level.
Before that i waited ages for dead rising and was so disapointed so it's not all good.

[ferrari_freak]

WOOT for PS3...so what if im a fanboy...everybody can have their opinions

ROFL, what kind of post is that? That's absolutely stupid. And yeah, I see the major blurring as well. In the second picture (in NFS Carbon), you can clearly see the tree in the background is very blurred, and the tree in the foreground has major AA issues.

Usama aka Ferrari Freak

[Gorgul]

http://static.flickr.com/142/321264897_99f07554a0_b.jpg

http://www.consolewars.de/gen/fetchpics.php?aidx=44804&database=attachments

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/adam2407/MS8.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/adam2407/MS7.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/adam2407/MS6.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d73/adam2407/MS3.jpg

[mursaat]

I do not tend to reply to threads like this, but this time I'm back from partying and [somehow, dunno how I ended like this] drunk.

There are always two factors:

1. The money you have
2. How much you hate the "other" company

So my conclusion is: If you have the money, get both. If not, buy your favourite company's console.

EOF

[[cTx]Philosophy]

360 FTW!!

Games look better and its gonna be the sheetz with HD cables once I get em..

The cell processor in the PS3 is the only thing going for the whole system IMO..

And thats just because im a DC member :P

[Mr.X]

IMO the 360 is the best of the 2. I would even consider buying one if the games weren't so darn expensive.

[Peeps42]

i was playing fight night 3 on my brothers ps3 and the graphics were amazing. i personally love xbox but they were great.

[eXceeded]

everyone keeps saying teh ps3 graphics are amazing and "much" better than the 360s, but even after seeing it for myself at GameOn I couldn't see what the fuss was about, everyone there was pleased. But I think that's because they are the consumers, they don't understand technology and seeing images with lots of flashy stuff with poor textures (as above) is what they want to see.
I think as Xtreme Systems' members we are above this sort of thing, and we all know that the 360 is graphically superior to the PS3s. The PS3 excels in teh CPU area though and I guess Blu-ray could be called a an advantage. But I'm not so sure thats what the consumers want, since what is CPU power to them? The SPEs make it harder to code for and so its extremely difficult to utilise the multiple cores effectively, what use it is realistically?! I doubt anyone can answer this for me...
Here's something you should all read:
http://dpad.gotfrag.com/ps3/story/35372/

[Soulburner]

Hmm never thought i'd say this, but i've never seen mud that looks so good :p:

[Richie P]

blah lbah blah another little whiney cry baby

Just shut up and listen. :slap:

Consider the maturity of the product and the launch titles for the PS3.

14 out of the 21 reported launch titles are multiplatform. What does that mean, ill explain, and listen this time.

It means that when they make these games, they are designed so that it takes as little effort (and therefore money) to write the code for each platform. Seeing as the 360 stole a huge headstart, the developers have had well over a year to know how to code for the 360 and how to get the best performance out of it by now whereas the devs have had the PS3 kits for what, months, at best. What this leads to is a game that is developed for the 360, and then 'made to work' on the PS3. This is the definition of a port. Just look at every multiplatofrm EA title ever released for an example of this. Consequently, the PS3 suffers (for the initial releases). Programming for the cell is essentially like trying to convert a single threaded appliction into a multithreaded application, and if you think the developers have already been able to do this, you're even more short-sighted that I thought. It is by no means a point and click operation using the Sony dev kits like you say. If converting single threaded apps to multithreaded was this simple, surely every pc program under the sun would be multi threaded (note the 'multi' not just 'dual' threaded - as we've seen from kentsfield benchies, there are only a very select few apps that are 'multi' threaded today and these have been specifcally coded). Basically every 'port' on the ps3 at the mo will be using very little of what the PS3 can offer.

What i've been hinting at here is what you touched on toward the end of your babble, but failed to see the significance of.


6 months from now 1 yr from now who knows, but it is within sony's history that it takes a year for their consoles to truly start opening up and programmers to get a grip on the architecture.

Bingo!! Jackpot! Ding-ding-ding...We have a winner!!! :stick:

If you're suggesting that you should buy a 360 because it will be the best for maybe the next 6 months then you are simply a retard. If you read your quote again and actually comprehend what it is saying, then you shouldn't just discard the PS3 because it might not be as good now. Think about the general lifespan of a console, I would look upon the PS3 as a sound 'investment'. To use the analogy of a car gearbox, the 360 is already in 5th, the PS3 however has barely got out of 2nd.

Nuff said on that matter.

Next topic, I wont be buying either. Both are superceeded by even a remotely decent pc, and with the tweaks and customisations that you can perform on a pc, i don't see it as a comparison. Examples? FPS (First person shooters, my main genre), PES patching, Oblivion high res scenery, program updates, choice of controllers / joysticks, being able to record clips or screenshots for sharing with mates... games consoles are designed for those who want to plug and play, and have the money to do this. Don't get me started on the price of console games...~£20 PC, £40 Console ...WTF?

Final point, I may well buy a Wii (or at least the controler and hax it to work on my pc :D). Priced sensibly, and actaully claiming to be something it can be - a fun, cheap, have your mates round and have a laugh, games console. I hear the Wii mentioned every day at least 2/3 times by random people at work. 360? PS3? Never, and if i do, it's just the stereotypical 18-30 year old bloke. Bravo Ninty on another fantastically innovative and well marketed product.

Ok so it was more than .2c, but there's my take on it. :)

[ugp]

Jesus...lets give the PS3 a fighting chance and give it the first year and see what it comes out with.

Now I have personally played the PS3 and was not impressed at all. But then again these were launch titles which didn't have the development time they needed.

I myself even if the system was awesome could not see myself paying $600 for a console. I didn't even want to spend the $400 on my XBOX 360 but I sold my PC and needed something for gaming. Now I love my XBOX 360 and it was my first console in a long time. Before then I always had Playstation 1 or 2.

One thing I bet Sony will release is a rumble feedback controller. Not having it there feels so weird without it. I have gotten so use to it with other consoles. That is my biggest complaint with the PS3.

Sony from a business end had very poor development to these game companies. A lot of games pulled out and canceled due to this. And there have been several game titles that were to be PS3 exclusives that are no longer. Now they are going to be on the 360 as well.

I see so much bashing and putting others down because of there comments. I just don't see what is the point of yelling at someone through a forum. Seems childish. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion. But some comments should have facts to back them up.

I agree that the Wii is going to be the best seller. It is more desired then the PS3. They did a test with several groups of kids and 90% of the time they chose the Wii over the PS3 after playing both.

People are forgetting about the fun factor with games and being graphics whores. It's not always about how well the game looks. It is how well the game plays.

I mean the original Zelda was one of my favorite games and still is and it is only 8-bit I believe.

So think twice about why you say one is better than the other. Threads like this are only setups for bashing and name calling and just overall complaining.

[vudoodoodoo]

People like to hate on Sony because it's the cool thing to do.
Let it mature for a year and see.

[ugp]

People like to hate on Sony because it's the cool thing to do.
Let it mature for a year and see.
Well my thought on that is Sony thinks they are such a hot shot and figure anything they release will be this huge successful thing. Sometimes a company needs to lose on something to realize that it is us the consumer that makes the company. Without us they would be nothing. I am kinda hoping the PS3 will fail just for that reason. Just think if the PS3 failed badly...Sony would lose on so much money and they would rethink how they make there next console.

I wouldn't be surprised is Sony became like Sega...went to just making games. It could happen. The PS3 could be the very determining factor. But time will tell.

All will tell within this next year. See how many consoles they can get released and how much development kits they can get out to the game studios. If you were a major game studio and the development wasn't there for a system, would you bother to sit around and wait for it? No you are going to make it for the available systems out. (i.e. Xbox 360 and the Wii).

[Kingcarcas]

Philosophy']360 FTW!!

Games look better and its gonna be the sheetz with HD cables once I get em..

The cell processor in the PS3 is the only thing going for the whole system IMO..

And thats just because im a DC member :P
Same here :D I want a 360, but my bro wants to buy a PS3 and if i get to unleash "teh power of da cell" for Folding@Home i can't complain :banana:

P.S. Gametrailers showed Motorstorm doesn't even come close to looking like that:p:

[Ubrak]

I got the PS3 because it doubles as a good blu-ray player. :), basically to if you don't have a 1080p set (which few do) then the PS3 isn't for you.

Ub

[afireinside]

hey did a test with several groups of kids and 90% of the time they chose the Wii over the PS3 after playing both.

Keyword there is KIDS.

As of now and most likely in the future 360>ps3, here's why

First off, the blu ray drive is one of the things ps3 fanboys talk about. Ok, for the same price as a ps3 you can get a 360 AND the HD DVD drive. Not an advantage anymore. Plus HD DVD is usually considered to be better than blu ray due to lower prices, a larger movie library, and more industry support.

Next we have graphics. Developers have said that the 360 is more powerful and it's obvious that it is. Unless you can show me how to get 4x aa on a 7900 without any performance loss, I think the winner here is obvious. Plus the xenos is based on R520 I believe and totes 48 unified shaders. SURE the ps3 has the cell processor, but that brings me to...

Point number 3! Everyone hates the cell processor. It's much harder to code for than the 360s xenon, John Carmack him self said so.

To make matters worse, Developers have already been working with the 360 hardware for over 2 years now and they know it's ins and outs. The ps3 will have an even longer learning curve thanks to the cell processor and the 360 has already had a year jump start.

Then you bring in online play, 360 wins once again IMO. Sure you have to pay 50 dollars a year to use XBL, but it's a much more organized system and works well for a console. PS3 is free sure, but it's up the the individual developers to integrate online play meaning more work for them (on top of learning the cell processor) and a less unified network. What you think is better is your decision but I'd take XBL any day of the week. Unfortunately console online play is still abysmal at best.

It's certainly possible that the ps3 could dethrone the 360. It's all a matter of how quickly developers learn the cell processor, how well they can utilize it, and how much support the system gets.

[Gorgul]

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5886/dsc01797fb7.jpg

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/539/dsc01790tz9.jpg

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/12/untitled50nh5.jpg

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/922/untitled51xd0.jpg

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/9083/untitled68iu6.jpg

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5483/untitled72qr7.jpg

[Celcius]

I think both systems are cool but Microsoft has this round won.

[Soulburner]

I think both systems are cool but Microsoft has this round won.
The fight has just begun.

[ugp]

Give the PS3 sometime. The PS3 is just horrible right now. It lacks so much. And that is a fact not an opinion. No great games, no rumble feedback. No online play for some games unlike the version for XBOX 360.

[Soulburner]

First off, the blu ray drive is one of the things ps3 fanboys talk about. Ok, for the same price as a ps3 you can get a 360 AND the HD DVD drive. Not an advantage anymore. Plus HD DVD is usually considered to be better than blu ray due to lower prices, a larger movie library, and more industry support.
HD DVD is promoted by Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, Microsoft, and Intel, among others. In terms of major studios, HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by Universal Studios, and is non-exclusively backed by Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. (including subsidiaries HBO and New Line Cinema), Warner Music Group, The Weinstein Company (through Genius Products), Image Entertainment (including Discovery Channel) , Magnolia Pictures, Brentwood Home Video, Ryko, Koch/Goldhil Entertainment, and Studio Canal. It is rumored that Hewlett Packard may support HD DVD, but as of now, they are part of the Blu-ray Disc Association Board of Directors, making it impossible for HP to support HD DVD in the foreseeable future.

As for Blu-ray, its too long to post so i'll just give the link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_supporting_Blu-ray

[jabski]

Give the PS3 sometime. The PS3 is just horrible right now. It lacks so much. And that is a fact not an opinion. No great games, no rumble feedback. No online play for some games unlike the version for XBOX 360.
agreed go for the 360 for now. Maybe it will all change in 6 months or so but the 360 is top at the moment :toast:

[Vapor]

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5886/dsc01797fb7.jpgShow 'em ur grillz. :banana:

Anyway, I only play sports and racing games on consoles, and already have an X360. Since games on the two (esp sports games) are nearly identical, with differences being so small I really couldn't care, I'm sticking with X360.

HOWEVER, IMO, PS3 will have one (or two) killer apps: Gran Turismo installments. I bought a PS2 and wheel just for GT4 (well, had a PS2 for GT3, but sold it, kept GT3, and then bought another PS2 later), but PS3's price tag is just too steep for me, so GTHD isn't enough to get me.

[serialk11r]

I think value-wise, 360 is WAY better. PS3 has so much bullsh*t stuff in it that isn't necessary. I personally think Sony is just trying to use ps3 to advertise for bluray, and get dumb people who have to much money and don't know what blu-ray is to buy it(I know of one such person). 360 and ps3 are pretty close performance wise, but ps3 costs way more. PS3 has bluray, which isn't even necessary (oh come on, who needs 25GB in a stupid disk???!!! There aren't even games that are CLOSE to filling a normal DVD disk yet!!!!!!! And dual layer DVD, 8 GB, thats like way more than what games need, and will be overkill for years to come). Blu-ray is an insanely expensive technology, and now is not the time it is needed, nor is it the time where it is cost-effective. That's why I like wii, because its cheap:D oh well bad graphics. 360 has everything you could ask for, with a reasonable price tag.

[Soulburner]

I think value-wise, 360 is WAY better. PS3 has so much bullsh*t stuff in it that isn't necessary. I personally think Sony is just trying to use ps3 to advertise for bluray, and get dumb people who have to much money and don't know what blu-ray is to buy it(I know of one such person). 360 and ps3 are pretty close performance wise, but ps3 costs way more. PS3 has bluray, which isn't even necessary (oh come on, who needs 25GB in a stupid disk???!!! There aren't even games that are CLOSE to filling a normal DVD disk yet!!!!!!! And dual layer DVD, 8 GB, thats like way more than what games need, and will be overkill for years to come). Blu-ray is an insanely expensive technology, and now is not the time it is needed, nor is it the time where it is cost-effective. That's why I like wii, because its cheap:D oh well bad graphics. 360 has everything you could ask for, with a reasonable price tag.
Max capacity for HD-DVD discs will be 30gb, and Blu-Ray 50gb, although that can change tomorrow. There are already companies that have produced multi-layer Blu-Ray discs with 100-200gb capacity.

When you have 1080p ultra high-res content on them, you need the space. Trying to fit such a movie (or other) onto a DVD would make for a very short movie.

[afireinside]

Trying to market a format using a last generation codec and 1200 dollar standalone players is also very hard.

[Soulburner]

Who sells a $1200 player :confused:

This is a 360 vs PS3 thread right? The PS3 is a Blu-Ray drive priced @ $499.

And to clear up the "last generation codec" bit:


For video, ISO MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, and SMPTE VC-1 are player-mandatory. (This means all BD-ROM players must be capable of decoding all three video codecs.) MPEG-2 video allows decoder backward compatibility for DVDs. H.264, sometimes called MPEG-4 part 10, is a more recent video codec. VC-1 is a competing MPEG-4 derivative codec proposed by Microsoft (based on Microsoft's previous work in Windows Media 9). BD-ROM titles with video must store video using one of the three mandatory codecs (multiple codecs on a single title are allowed).


For audio, BD-ROM players are required to support Dolby Digital AC-3, DTS, and linear PCM (up to 7.1 channels). Dolby Digital Plus, and lossless formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD are player optional. BD-ROM titles must use one of mandatory audiotracks for the primary soundtrack (linear PCM 5.1, Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1.). A secondary audiotrack, if present, may use any of the mandatory or optional codecs. For uncompressed PCM and lossless audio in Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio formats, Blu-ray Discs support encoding in up to 24-bit/192 kHz for up to six channels, or up to eight channels of up to 24-bit/96 kHz encoding. For reference, even new big-budget Hollywood films are mastered in only 24-bit/48 kHz, with 16-bit/48 kHz being common for ordinary films.

For users recording digital television broadcasts, the Blu-ray Disc's baseline datarate of 36 Mbit/s is more than adequate to record high-definition broadcasts. Support for new codecs will evolve as they are encapsulated by broadcasters into their MPEG-2 transport streams, and consumer set-top boxes capable of decoding them are rolled out. For Blu-ray Disc movies the maximum transfer rate is 54 Mbit/s (1.5x) for the combined audio and video payload, of which a maximum of 40 Mbit/s can be dedicated to video data. This compares favorably to the maximum of 36.55 Mbit/s in HD DVD movies for audio and video data.

[Khaotic]

I own a 360, but i've logged a few hours on a PS3. I like both.
I can't really do a fair comparison becuase I haven't seen both on the same TV set. My 360 is on a 55" Sony SXRD - I've been running the 360 at 1080i. The PS3 is at my buddies house on a Panasonic 720p/1080i DLP. We run that at 1080i too, beucase his TV isn't 1080p capable. We haven't played any 1080p games yet - so i feel thats a mute point.
I did play Ultimate Alliance on both platforms. same game with some differences. MOst of which, the way the controllers act. That 6-axis controller may sound nice, but to me - it's quite ackward.

I don't like the fact that you HAVE to get the PS3 with Blu-ray. I feel that HD-DVD is a far superior media, and for me, the additional cost of a Blu-ray player in my game console is a waste. Sure, if I were blinded by Sony's propaganda and supported blu-ray hand over fist, then sure. But I'm not - so I won't. This HI-DEF optical standard war is costing consumers a lot of wasted money and time. But that is a completly different discussion all together.

[ugp]

The controller is very awkward to me as well. I didn't like it at all. I don't think Blu-Ray is going to win this format war anyway...look at why VHS won over BETA. Alot of it had to do with the :banana::banana::banana::banana: industry accepting BETA. So in my personal opinion and that is all this is I don't think the PS3 is going to take off just to sell as a Blu-Ray player. Everywhere around me the stores have PS3 in stock and they are just sitting there. No one is buying them at all.

[NoPeace]

In my eyes I see the xbox 360 and the PS3 not as gaming systems. That's what the Wii is.

The xbox 360 is a digital media center that can play games. It's a great HD/DVD player. There's network streaming support to watch stuff off of your computer. There's great online support for chatting and downloading media. All in all it's an excellent digital media center. Far superior the old MS idea of a Media Center PC. And not to mention it has gaming quality equal or better then a high end PC in many ways. (playing GRAW, RS: Vegas, and Oblivion are far better on the 360 + HDTV then my dual x1900XTX setup)

What the PS3 is is something completely different. It's a cheap Linux box / BluRay player. For $500 + another $90 you can get yourself a 120GB Linux box with BluRay support. So you can watch the bloody HD movies that come out for BluRay and not be killed by the bloody $1000 price tag for table top unit and also have a Linux box that should in theory be quite powerful. Though I have yet to actually compare the 3.2ghz Cell processor to my Desktop's 3.2ghz C2D. Which hopefully I can do when I get back to the states at the end of the month. And just think. Your cheap Linux box / BluRay player can also play some decent games. Though not much of them.

NoPeace - out

[afireinside]

There's network streaming support to watch stuff off of your computer. There's great online support for chatting and downloading media. All in all it's an excellent digital media center. Far superior the old MS idea of a Media Center PC.

Unfortunately you need either their MCE OS or zune client to stream. The XBL voice codec sounds horrible and you can't chat with multiple people at once. downloadable media is meh at best and their download speeds and interface suck. I have a 2.5MB/s fios connection and it took longer to download a 600mb demo over XBL than it takes to download over a gig on my PC. Saying it's a great media center is laughable at best. How many people have all their digital media in WMV format? Not many. I'm hoping and praying the 120gb HDD version has support for H.264, divx, and xvid.

[ugp]

Unfortunately you need either their MCE OS or zune client to stream. The XBL voice codec sounds horrible and you can't chat with multiple people at once. downloadable media is meh at best and their download speeds and interface suck. I have a 2.5MB/s fios connection and it took longer to download a 600mb demo over XBL than it takes to download over a gig on my PC. Saying it's a great media center is laughable at best. How many people have all their digital media in WMV format? Not many. I'm hoping and praying the 120gb HDD version has support for H.264, divx, and xvid.
Says who?

I don't have nowhere near either...I am using a Mac and I can stream Music, Pictures, and Movies to my XBOX 360.

[Soulburner]

I don't like the fact that you HAVE to get the PS3 with Blu-ray. I feel that HD-DVD is a far superior media, and for me, the additional cost of a Blu-ray player in my game console is a waste. Sure, if I were blinded by Sony's propaganda and supported blu-ray hand over fist, then sure. But I'm not - so I won't. This HI-DEF optical standard war is costing consumers a lot of wasted money and time. But that is a completly different discussion all together.
I'll agree with that. If Sony made JUST a PS3, stripped down and a Blu-Ray player add-on (like the 360 HD-DVD drive) I think it would attract a few more people. I'm sure that taking the Blu-Ray player out of there would drop the price significantly, possibly even below the XBox 360 price.

[afireinside]

Says who?

I don't have nowhere near either...I am using a Mac and I can stream Music, Pictures, and Movies to my XBOX 360.

How did you get that to work? I haven't been able to... On top of that why is all your digital media in WMV form?

[[cTx]Philosophy]

^^^ Good question ^^^

[ugp]

How did you get that to work? I haven't been able to... On top of that why is all your digital media in WMV form?
I don't use it to stream video though. Yes the video has to be WMV. But stream all my music and photos to my XBOX 360 just fine and works flawless.

I use a program called Connect360.

[afireinside]

I don't use it to stream video though. Yes the video has to be WMV. But stream all my music and photos to my XBOX 360 just fine and works flawless.

I use a program called Connect360.



I don't have nowhere near either...I am using a Mac and I can stream Music, Pictures, and Movies to my XBOX 360.


...:confused:

[Blknoel]

Final Fantasy of Square Enix is Playstation exclusive, that's more than enough a reason to buy a PS3 ;), if you don't love the series, too bad :P

Take that light heartedly please, I don't mean anything serious.

And I do believe when direct porting (if exists) something from 360 to PS3, you can't expect it to look as good. We all know these 2 consoles got 2 different CPU architecture and 2 different GPU manufacturers (hello Nvidia and ATi!) as well. (gosh they even utilise 2 different media formats)

So it's like 2 things at 2 extreme ends fighting for survival (poor Wii lol). And if you can accept the fact that there exist PC titles (yes, one platform, ie. PC) that are MORE Nvidia-friendly than ATi, what's so hard to accept that most of the titles in the comparison, which were developed for 360 originally, may not look its best on a new born platform?

And since PS3 were out almost a year and a half later, it's normal 360 has a bigger user community due to a head start, hence more games, hence more support etc., but jumping to conclusion at this time, where PS3 hasn't even warmed up with its own exclusive titles, is a bit harsh and unfair.

PS3 feels more like a media center, while 360 focuses mainly on gaming, so support wise both sides will be diversified, and originally 360 doesn't even have 1080p support to talk about, which is why Microsoft is developing Zephyr (360 ver.2, also with a brand new 65nm CPU) to catch up on HD support.

[ugp]

...:confused:
What are you confused about?

[afireinside]

You said you streamed from your mac to 360 then when I asked how you said you don't. Do you or do you not stream from a mac to your 360? If so, how.

[GAR]

i own an XBOX 360, but one thing you guys shouldnt do, is underestimate the POWER behind the name PLAYSTATION, the average consumer doesnt know the difference between 2 cores and 4 cores, or more gigaflops or flops of any sort.......you can have this conversation in about a year.

[Littleluk]

Well, do you know the reason why I'm going to buy the PS3? Jep, I dont want to spend that much money for fast graphic cards, I dont want to install games. When I'm on my machine I'm either working or browsing through the internet. Its just something else lying on the couch and playing with that wireless controler on a plasma screen than sitting in front of my computer. Sure, both can be fun, but the gaming experience you get from consoles is ways more fun in my opinion.
Oh, sorry, off topic. Well the main reason is that the ps3 can play bluray discs, thats important for me because I dont want to spend money for a bluray player. AND of course, 1080p not just i.

[ugp]

You said you streamed from your mac to 360 then when I asked how you said you don't. Do you or do you not stream from a mac to your 360? If so, how.
I said I don't stream "Video". I use a program called Connect360. I can stream music, photos, and videos. Yes the videos still have to be WMV. But I am getting AppleTV for video streaming. That will fix that issue. But I can stream all my music to my TV with no problems at all and I can even apply photos from my Mac as wallpaper to my Xbox 360.

[Kingcarcas]

X360 supports 1080P IIRC.

(poor Wii lol).
Poor Wii? It's sold over 4 million consoles:confused:

And since PS3 were out almost a year and a half later, it's normal 360 has a bigger user community due to a head start, hence more games, hence more support etc., but jumping to conclusion at this time, where PS3 hasn't even warmed up with its own exclusive titles, is a bit harsh and unfair.
I would agree if the PS3 was $400 (like i expected it to be and was even going to buy) but it's more expensive. The 360 is ahead in terms of software, hardware, and services while being cheaper. It's not like the PS2, sure it still has the name, but the PS2 was out before the Xbox and it already had some killer apps by the time the Xbox launched. Plus who even knew what the Xbox was? :p: PS2 was all the hype.

[NoPeace]

Unfortunately you need either their MCE OS or zune client to stream. The XBL voice codec sounds horrible and you can't chat with multiple people at once. downloadable media is meh at best and their download speeds and interface suck. I have a 2.5MB/s fios connection and it took longer to download a 600mb demo over XBL than it takes to download over a gig on my PC. Saying it's a great media center is laughable at best. How many people have all their digital media in WMV format? Not many. I'm hoping and praying the 120gb HDD version has support for H.264, divx, and xvid.

You don't need MCE OS or have to have the videos in WMV to stream. Read this article: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1002/

They go on about how to use another program to do it and it does the job very well. Able to stream all my divx and xvid stuff to my x360 and the end result is quite nice.

And about DL speeds over XBL it might just be you. DLing a 600mb file on my xbox takes just as long as it does on my computer running the same 8mb cable line.

So if you work it out. It becomes a good media center. Being able to stream all of my music and videos from my desktop and being able to have HDDVD playback also.

NoPeace - out

[gr8golf]

IDK if I posted on this forum (or thread), so I'll say it again. I'd like for the 360 to do well and for the development platforms for the PC and 360 to essentially become one and the same. It would be awesome if a developer could write one set of code and have it run on both platforms without porting or major modifications. The final product running on the PC could take advantage of the superior (faster evolving) hardware and the console version would play to the mass market crowd. Net effect = more / better titles on the PC and less headache for the developers.

Any game developers on here that can comment?

[afireinside]

IDK if I posted on this forum (or thread), so I'll say it again. I'd like for the 360 to do well and for the development platforms for the PC and 360 to essentially become one and the same. It would be awesome if a developer could write one set of code and have it run on both platforms without porting or major modifications. The final product running on the PC could take advantage of the superior (faster evolving) hardware and the console version would play to the mass market crowd. Net effect = more / better titles on the PC and less headache for the developers.

Any game developers on here that can comment?

Look at cod2. Was made for the 360 and easily ported to the PC and look what happened. DX9 mode runs like crap and the gameplay is laughable at best compared to cod1.

[DoomSayer]

OK im a X360 fanboy anyway but this is why i wouldnt buy a PS3 just yet.

1.Blue-ray is over DRM'ed + its slow uses an old codec.
to back this up everyone knows oblivion right ?
it will run much slower on PS3 they even put the oblivium data twice on the BR disc to improve the lard ass speed of the drive.
Plus its a Crappy expensive standard imo like there UMD and minidisc.
And HD-DVD will have more layers added to it sooner or later so it will be as big if not bigger then BR

2. im european and sony took a huge dump on us.
Claiming it wasnt important to rls as fast in europe.

3.Backwards compatibility for PS2 games is utter crap.
X360 aint perfect on this matter to anyway but i bought this thing to play X360 games my old xbox is right next to it for XBMC you know ;)

4.if you dont own a LCD i heard youre GFX are not that good .
I own a 32" Philips LCD anyway so thats no problem.
The PS3 seams to have major problems up and downscaling coz every game is made for 1080P

5.I cant help the fact that the PS3 looks bad.
Xbox 360 does not have much eyecandy aswell but the PS3 doesnt either

6.the fact that PS3 fanboys are screaming that the GFX of the current games look well is explained by one thing only. Dev'ing games for the PS3 cost a ton more then for X360.thats why games that are currently out on xbox 360 are either bad quality to PS3 ports or they dont get ported at all.

In my eyes the PS3 has not proved anything yet.
Maybe over a year they can convince me

[Soulburner]

OK im a X360 fanboy anyway but this is why i wouldnt buy a PS3 just yet.

1.Blue-ray is over DRM'ed + its slow uses an old codec.
to back this up everyone knows oblivion right ?
it will run much slower on PS3 they even put the oblivium data twice on the BR disc to improve the lard ass speed of the drive.
Plus its a Crappy expensive standard imo like there UMD and minidisc.
And HD-DVD will have more layers added to it sooner or later so it will be as big if not bigger then BR
Wrong, read my last post about the codecs: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1938368&postcount=34

Blu-Ray is initially 25gb but a dual layer can carry 50gb. Companies are already working on 200gb or larger multi layer discs so don't think HD-DVD is the only one capable of that.

And everyone saying that these new formats are pointless for gaming and thats its a waste to put the BR player in the PS3 can take a look at Microsoft's new weapon to try and penetrate the Japanese market: Blue Dragon. That XBox 360 game is a 3-DVD game. That's right, a multi-DVD game. Now how are these new formats useless again? :rolleyes: It would be a single disc on a new format.


In my eyes the PS3 has not proved anything yet.
Maybe over a year they can convince me
I wouldn't buy one now either. Definetely wait it out, besides PC gaming is plenty good in the meantime, I mean you can only have time for so much gaming anyway right? I'd have to choose either one or the other, or just take bloody forever to finish any game playing both.

[DoomSayer]

Well i agrea with you on the fact that alot of GB's of disc space isnt a bad thing.
But really whats the use off it all if games load slow and have jerky performance because off it.
I can imagine when BR gets faster read speeds this will all get sorted out.
But hey this wont benefit all the PPL who already own a PS3 now does it.

Also you're right about that codec thing.
But i dont think we will see alot off blue-ray with SMPTE VC-1 codec on them.
otherwise this whole standard war wouldnt be necessary.

[Soulburner]

The original Playstation had a 2x CD-ROM. Now that was slow...I don't think it really factors into a system's success in the market though.

Many games in development for these new consoles load a lot into ram from the beginning, then feature very little or sometimes even no loading while playing the game, which will be nice.

[NoPeace]

Just picked up a 60gb PS3 yesterday. Wanted a 20gb but it's impossible to find, went to 20 stores and they all had 60gb but no 20gb.

Anyways I have to say. It's a very well built machine. Extreamly sturdy. Compared to the Wii and x360 it's probally the best built machine.

Also it's dead quiet. The stupid display models in stores are so loud but this thing is dead quiet. About the same noise level as the Wii. Which is pretty amazing concidering how hot it actually does get. Almost as hot as the x360.

For the OS it's total crap. The XMB is just the :banana::banana::banana::banana:tiest thing I've ever seen. It's hard to navigate and just doesn't feel right. Also the online store is a joke. It's the laggiest and most unorganized thing I ever seen before. And downloading is a total joke as it doesn't do it in the back ground. It's just there and if you get out of the window it stops the DL. Also you need to install your games before you play it. What kind of joke is that?

Also HDMI is a joke with it. Wanted to get component cables but BestBuy was the only place that had it for tripple the MSRP. So I opted to get a HDMI cable. It might be my TV (Samsung LNS2641D) but images seems to remain on black backgrounds. Which is highly annoying. And every time the video output changes, since there is no scalling it needs to change the resolution all the time, the screen flickers alot and the sound crackels and pops. And this only happens with the HDMI as the normal RCA imputs don't do it and nor does any thing else I have running on the TV via RCA or component.

Now how does games play? I only have Resistance and the demos for Genji, GT5, and Motor Strom. And all of them just look amazing. Especially GT5. Everything just looks real in that game. And for the others the graphics are kick ass. And they all play with out lag. Then again they are just the PS3 only things and I have yet to actually try anything that's on multiplatform which is said to be laggy.

Also PS/PS2 games really do look bad. And I mean really bad. I so hope they fix that in the March update as it's just an eye sore.

For BluRay and DVD play. I've only played a DVD and it worked. Though only at 480p. Which it would upscale DVD's but it doesn't. Would like to try a BluRay and will probally try latter this week. SAW3 will hopefully look kick ass in 1080i. :D

NoPeace - out

[[TAG]Imp]

3.Backwards compatibility for PS2 games is utter crap.
X360 aint perfect on this matter to anyway but i bought this thing to play X360 games my old xbox is right next to it for XBMC you know ;)

4.if you dont own a LCD i heard youre GFX are not that good .
I own a 32" Philips LCD anyway so thats no problem.
The PS3 seams to have major problems up and downscaling coz every game is made for 1080P

5.I cant help the fact that the PS3 looks bad.
Xbox 360 does not have much eyecandy aswell but the PS3 doesnt either

6.the fact that PS3 fanboys are screaming that the GFX of the current games look well is explained by one thing only. Dev'ing games for the PS3 cost a ton more then for X360.thats why games that are currently out on xbox 360 are either bad quality to PS3 ports or they dont get ported at all.


Backwards compatibility for PS3 is a LOT better than 360...
I have an LCD, and my PS3 looks great on it.
Motorstorm is probably my favorite in terms of graphics, until you see it live you won't understand the potential of the system....
and the ported games are bad because that's the nature of quick ports, especially with hardware differences. Quick ports=worse/equal graphics, worse/equal performance, unless the developer takes the time to REALLY port the game, which most haven't.

[flclisgreat]

3.Backwards compatibility for PS2 games is utter crap.
X360 aint perfect on this matter to anyway but i bought this thing to play X360 games my old xbox is right next to it for XBMC you know ;)

LMAO, thats quite funny. i honestly don't know anything about the consoles
(either one) backwards compatibility, but i do gota say that its funny that you say "OMG!!1, the ps3 sucks at backwards compatibility, but thats ok for my 360 cause i bought it for the 360 games not xbox 1 games"

so people buy the ps3 to play ps2 games?

and anyway all it really comes down to is the exclusive titles.

all i need is some MGS4 and i will be happy

[NoPeace]

Imp']Backwards compatibility for PS3 is a LOT better than 360...
I have an LCD, and my PS3 looks great on it.

You are joking right? Sure the PS3 plays 99% of the PS2 games but it does have a massive issue with it. There is no AA at all. Making old games a jaggered mess. I couldn't belive how bad it looked even on a cell shadded game like Robotech. And forget about high detail games like Shadow of Colousses. That is just a horror show.

With the x360 you can't play all of the games. About 300-400 you can but the ones you can actually look better on the x360. With the bumped up resolution and 4xAA on them it makes them look so much better.

And yes the PS3 looks kick ass on an LCD and MotoStorm's graphics is amazing! Up there with GT5 graphics. Shame that the launch titles don't have that great of graphics though.


so people buy the ps3 to play ps2 games?

and anyway all it really comes down to is the exclusive titles.

all i need is some MGS4 and i will be happy

I did. =P

My PS2 finnaly died after 6 years so I went out and got a PS3 to replace it since I don't see the point buying another PS2 when I will eventually get a PS3 anyways for the exclusives. MGS4, FFXIII, FFXIII Versus, GT5, and MotorStorm are going to kickass.

NoPeace - out

[Kingcarcas]

^Yup i was thinking of doing that, but my uncle ended up with a free PS2 so all is well. As for disc swapping on the Xbox360, the PS1 had RPGs with multiple discs as well.

[[TAG]Imp]

i have no visual issues playing PS2 game with a PS3... sure, they aren't touched up for the PS3, but unlike the 360, you can play virtually all of them..

[gr8golf]

Imp']i have no visual issues playing PS2 game with a PS3... sure, they aren't touched up for the PS3, but unlike the 360, you can play virtually all of them..

Did you install that update from Sony that was supposed to address this issue, or was yours good to go out of the box?

[Ripn929]

I found a PS3 without even looking for one. You wanna know how? It's the same way I got a Nintendo 64, PS2, and 2 PSP's when they were supposed to be sold out every where on earth.........
GO TO A WALMART IN A PODUNK TOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY. They get the same alotment, and not even close to the demand. Also there is not nearly as much employee interfierence IE; Saving one for friends and family, themselves, etc. I have never had to wait for the hype to die, or resort to E-BAY (nor would I). I got my PS3 a week before Christmas in Ukiah California, they had 3 or 4 gathering dust, the place was packed. Its almost like no one cared.

[NoPeace]

Did you install that update from Sony that was supposed to address this issue, or was yours good to go out of the box?

My boxed unit that I just bot had the old 1.3 firmware on it. I had to update to the 1.32 that was released in December.

Though the 1.5 just came out yesterday and it fixes most of the graphical issues with PS2 games. Though it's still not 100% back to normal. But vastly better.


I found a PS3 without even looking for one. You wanna know how? It's the same way I got a Nintendo 64, PS2, and 2 PSP's when they were supposed to be sold out every where on earth.........
GO TO A WALMART IN A PODUNK TOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY. They get the same alotment, and not even close to the demand. Also there is not nearly as much employee interfierence IE; Saving one for friends and family, themselves, etc. I have never had to wait for the hype to die, or resort to E-BAY (nor would I). I got my PS3 a week before Christmas in Ukiah California, they had 3 or 4 gathering dust, the place was packed. Its almost like no one cared.

Well now it's easy to find the 60gb. Every store I've been to had at least 3-4 units. Some of the bigger stores had more.

It's the 20gb that Sony isn't making much of and are hard to find now. O.O

And so is the bloody PS2 memory card adapter. No store or website seems to have them. >.<

NoPeace - out

[ksimp88]

HA... look at all the fan boys...
Let's face it, the Xbox 360 is winning now, but compare the 360 release to the PS3 release... remember tho recall? Yep. PS3 isn't having a recall... Also, thhe PS3 release games are better than the Xbox 360 release games, in terms of graphics and stability.
Another fact is that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360... developers aren't even close to releasing the full potential of the PS3, yet we have people saying: "Xbox 360 is better than PS3!"

Just wait... just wait...

BTW, why does Xbox live have to be better than PS3's network? the PS3 network is free... Xbox live isn't...

[eBoy0]

For me.... it's whoever's system is cracked first... equaling free games ;)
Swapmagic ftw!! :D

[Soulburner]

HA... look at all the fan boys...
Let's face it, the Xbox 360 is winning now, but compare the 360 release to the PS3 release... remember tho recall? Yep. PS3 isn't having a recall... Also, thhe PS3 release games are better than the Xbox 360 release games, in terms of graphics and stability.
Another fact is that the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360... developers aren't even close to releasing the full potential of the PS3, yet we have people saying: "Xbox 360 is better than PS3!"

Just wait... just wait...

BTW, why does Xbox live have to be better than PS3's network? the PS3 network is free... Xbox live isn't...
If you remember back to the XBox the same thing happened. There were fanboys around the world saying how PS2 sucks because the XBox is so much more powerful and can make better games.

Well guess what? The PS2 greatly outsold the XBox and its best games didn't look any worse than the "more powerful" system :rolleyes:

[fastback88]

H

BTW, why does Xbox live have to be better than PS3's network? the PS3 network is free... Xbox live isn't...

this is really a moot point. xbl is better than ps3's online for sure. paying for an account is for sure worth it, because it stops people cheating ( for the most part) because they dont want to lose their $50 account...anyone remember playing ps2 online, trying to play madden and having your opponent pull the ethernet cable out as you try to kick field goals...yeah its happening again

[Super strokey]

Im no lover of MS but i have to admit that the 360 looks more and more appealing... of course i wont get oen till the price drops a bit. Not even sure if i will get one then cause the wii is just too much fun i dont know i would ever actually play a 360.

[Ripn929]

Why do you want the 20 gig ps3 over the 60? Cost?

[Soulburner]

One thing to note, the 20gb PS3 doesn't have memory card slots so you can't use your PS2 save games.

[ksimp88]

this is really a moot point. xbl is better than ps3's online for sure. paying for an account is for sure worth it, because it stops people cheating ( for the most part) because they dont want to lose their $50 account...anyone remember playing ps2 online, trying to play madden and having your opponent pull the ethernet cable out as you try to kick field goals...yeah its happening again
Sucks to be you, It never happened to me, lol. I haven't delt with morons like that on the PS2 network.:D

[NoPeace]

Why do you want the 20 gig ps3 over the 60? Cost?

If you don't need the memory stick reader and wi-fi. Then for the same price as the 60gb you can get the 20gb + an extra 120gb HDD.

So more storage for the same price without the extras you don't need.


One thing to note, the 20gb PS3 doesn't have memory card slots so you can't use your PS2 save games.

Nor do the 60gb. You need to go out and buy the PS2 to USB adapter. And the bad thing about it no online place and 99% of stores don't have them in stock. I was lucky to find one in a shop that normally don't care game stuff for 33% higher retail price.

NoPeace - out

[Soulburner]

They why was it advertised in the specs? The only differences were noted to be 20gb vs 60gb, and the memory card/memory stick slots.

[ZL1Killa]

one of the comments made by one of the retards about the NFS Carbon was that its not fair, that the PS3 was using a direct 360 port.
if they had used the PS3 hardware.. blah lbah blah another little whiney cry baby :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing that once againt he PS3 got dueced by the 360

i find it so freaking funny and yet childish and frustrating.

it has been said by some of THE top designers, and guru's of the Game industry. the 360 is more powerful on the graphics end, that is undisputed as of now. 6 months from now 1 yr from now who knows, but it is within sony's history that it takes a year for their consoles to truly start opening up and programmers to get a grip on the architecture.

360 all the way, from the games, to the console, to the online and Live experience.
oh and the price point, and the fact that you will actually be able to buy one,, hows that

THANK YOU. you da man

[NoPeace]

They why was it advertised in the specs? The only differences were noted to be 20gb vs 60gb, and the memory card/memory stick slots.

Memory slots as in Compact Flash, SD, and Memory Stick Pro. And that's it.

NoPeace - out

[Connectz]

I have both systems and right now, and I stress *right now*, the 360 has the PS3 beat hands down. This may change in the future though.

[shogo_ca]

Hi, I am maybe repeating what someone else have said, havent the time to read all the thread but i tought my point ov view would be usefull.

I am not a game programmer, but a level artist (environment artist, i modelise 3d environment, i work with a 3D engine, it is more graphical stuff..) BUT i work with people i know who are game programmer on ps3 games and i asked them the same question, Who is the best? ps3 or xbox 360, in term of power and games.

This is the answer i got:

Ps3 has the Cell Processor, wich have 1 Main core and 6 Threading core. The main core is used to control the thread over the 6 others and for the main programmation and stuff. the 6 others can only be used for threaded information such as physics, sound, ai, .... The problem we have with the ps3 is that there is no real support from sony and the programmers to really developt a optimal code that can really use the 6 threading cores. So basically when a company is developping on multi platform (360, pc, ps3) they shrink the xbox 360 version so that it can fit on one single core of the ps3. To developpement of optimal programation and time it would take to really use the 6 cores would cost too much for the game developpers and there is not a big enough market to justify the time/money for this. And sony does not even give the support so its 50% sonys fault, 50% developpers fault.

So Technically, the ps3 CPU power is WAY superior to xbox 360.

The ps3 has 512 XDR ram, that is faster than the 360 i think, but the problem is that it is locked to 256mb for system memory and 256mb for texture/graphical memory. This is a huge problem when games like MGS4 will be playable in 1080 res and all the textures will be forced to be ultra low-resolution but displayed in ultra-high resolution. The default will be amplified eheh.

On the other side, 360 has 512mb of memory too, a bit slower i think, but the memory size is customizable. a game that requires more graphical memory can use 460mb of graphical memory and use the rest for system memory. So the ability to push the 360 graphically is maybe higher.

360 dont have 7 core, if i remember well what ive been told, it has 3 cpu not dual core but that can run like 2 thread at the same time like Hyper Threading. It is slower, but microsoft fully support the game developpers and the programmation for 360 is way more fluid and easy. Over that you can port the game to PC by doing some easy tweaks, so you have 2 powerfull market for the cost of one.the ps3 market is too small to justify the costs sometimes.

SO as i told you, that is what i understood from the game programmer is maybe not 100% right because i dont have all the knowledge of what programation is and im sure he stripped down so that i can understand but basically it is the big lines.

[afireinside]

developers aren't even close to releasing the full potential of the PS3, yet we have people saying: "Xbox 360 is better than PS3!"

Just wait... just wait...

BTW, why does Xbox live have to be better than PS3's network? the PS3 network is free... Xbox live isn't...

You missed the part where developers are saying the 360 has more graphical power than the ps3 and is lightyears easier to code to it's full potential...

Plus you also failed to read that most of the people here are saying as of now 360 > ps3 not LOLZ PS3 IS A POS XBOX FTW SONY DIE IN A FIRE

How is ps3's online better than 360s though? Sure you have to pay for it but it has voice chat, a unified architecture, unified friends system, marketplace, XBL arcade, and it's a tried and true system. PS3's online is whatever the developer decided to take the time to code...

[Kingcarcas]

That's what makes me laugh :p: People think they're going to get Xbox Live for free :rofl: This is Sony here and i expect PS3 online will be just like it was with my PS2 (sucky) Sure Xbox Live is $50, but you get what you pay for. It took MS years to perfect it :toast:

[Soulburner]

That's what makes me laugh :p: People think they're going to get Xbox Live for free :rofl: This is Sony here and i expect PS3 online will be just like it was with my PS2 (sucky) Sure Xbox Live is $50, but you get what you pay for. It took MS years to perfect it :toast:
Is that per month or per year? If it's pear year that isn't bad, just a small drop in the bucket of your salary. But if it's per month, you'd have to be real serious about dedicating your time to your TV to get your money's worth.

[adamant415]

Is that per month or per year? If it's pear year that isn't bad, just a small drop in the bucket of your salary. But if it's per month, you'd have to be real serious about dedicating your time to your TV to get your money's worth.

Per year

[Soulburner]

Then that is nothing (well not to MS, multiply 50 by number of users and you have a substantial amount of money). Heck that's a few magazine subscriptions.

[PanteraGSTK]

Seems that most of the posts in this thread are by people who have opinions and no supporting facts. Yes the ps3 is more difficult to program, but why. Well, sony isn't helping developers and there is a completely new processor to code for. Gee I wonder why that makes things hard? The x-box has been out for a year longer, I wonder why there is more support for it? And as far as the price goes you have to compare what is comparable. The 20gb ps3 is comparible to the 360 not the 60gb. Why? Because the 360 doesn't have a 60gb option. Then the ps3 is only $100 more. Oh wait, it has a built it blu-ray drive, and if you compare it to the hd-dvd rive for the x-box the ps3 is actually $100 cheaper than the 360. Don't care about blu-ray? Well, not yet, but you will either have to care about hd-dvd or blu ray because when programming for BOTH matures, the games will take more capacity than a dl dvd can hold. Just look at the size of a folder after you install. say, doom3. it's over 10gb (this is just an example) so there is no way to fit it on a dvd. Still don't care about hd video in general? Doesn't matter, you have to figure the blu-ray drive into the price of the ps3 because there is no option to get one without it...yet. Anybody that buys a console after the first release and is supprised it doesn't work perfectly right out of the box is a moron...Granted we should be able to expect this quality of product, but then we'd have to wait at least another year for them to do R&D, which would pi$$ off the consumer because they have to wait for something. Did the 360 work without any problems the first month after it's release? Nope, so why would anyone expect any other console too?

All in all this comparison is irrelevent until we get a game that is cross platform and the developers program said game specifically for BOTH systems. Then we can compare them.

[Soulburner]

Don't care about blu-ray? Well, not yet, but you will either have to care about hd-dvd or blu ray because when programming for BOTH matures, the games will take more capacity than a dl dvd can hold. Just look at the size of a folder after you install. say, doom3. it's over 10gb (this is just an example) so there is no way to fit it on a dvd.
It's already happening. Blue Dragon (360) will be 3 DVD's. In this respect, Sony made a good move. You can pretty much bet that any future game will only require 1 disc.

Packing a big game with high-res content will take a ton more space than before, and a DVD isn't going to cut it. Microsoft says they have no plans to utilize HD-DVD for games, and its probably because if they did you would have to buy their $200 add-on to play them. The Playstation 3 doesn't look that expensive anymore.

[PanteraGSTK]

It's already happening. Blue Dragon (360) will be 3 DVD's. In this respect, Sony made a good move. You can pretty much bet that any future game will only require 1 disc.

Packing a big game with high-res content will take a ton more space than before, and a DVD isn't going to cut it. Microsoft says they have no plans to utilize HD-DVD for games, and its probably because if they did you would have to buy their $200 add-on to play them. The Playstation 3 doesn't look that expensive anymore.

Smart man...I like games on all 3 systems, but this is a hardware/functionality discussion and until they BOTH (ps3/360) have platform specific titles, we're going to wonder what they are truly capable of. Besides, all of us know pc graphics rule them both...:banana:

[Khaotic]

BluRay? If it weren't for that single fact alone, I might consider a PS3 - but, I personally, can't STAND BluRay. From a movie watchers standpoint, HD-DVD is far superior. Lets just go with cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to adopt (hardware wise), and the potential for better visuals is there. Sony slapped together BluRay basing it on old compression technology and tried to smooth that over with a HUGE amount of stroage capacity. So, all the PC enthusisats and consumers would see is a BIG number. And of course, bigger numbers draw crowds 'Well, why didn't HD-DVD have that' SIMPLE: IT DOESN'T NEED IT.

Sure, to get HD-DVD for the XBOX you have to shell out another $199 - but from what i've read in all the game mags, neither Sony nor Microsoft plan to press games onto a BluRay or HD-DVD disc. Sounds kind of far fetched to me - but that's just what i've read.

Oh, and here's one extra tid-bit. A fellow gaming buddy of mine says that the HD-DVD player for the XBOX will work just fine on a PC. After all, it is just a USB hook up.

[NoPeace]

Oh, and here's one extra tid-bit. A fellow gaming buddy of mine says that the HD-DVD player for the XBOX will work just fine on a PC. After all, it is just a USB hook up.

It does work just fine. But you do NEED an HDCP complaint card like 7950's, 1950's and 8800's to actually use HD-DVDs.

NoPeace - out

[Soulburner]

BluRay? If it weren't for that single fact alone, I might consider a PS3 - but, I personally, can't STAND BluRay. From a movie watchers standpoint, HD-DVD is far superior. Lets just go with cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to adopt (hardware wise), and the potential for better visuals is there. Sony slapped together BluRay basing it on old compression technology and tried to smooth that over with a HUGE amount of stroage capacity. So, all the PC enthusisats and consumers would see is a BIG number. And of course, bigger numbers draw crowds 'Well, why didn't HD-DVD have that' SIMPLE: IT DOESN'T NEED IT.
Maybe you should read my post again. I don't see anything about "old compression technology" here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1938368&postcount=34

[ramenchef]

Right now the 360 has the edge, but wait a few more months for the systems to develop more fully and then see who the victor is.

[Pro Kid]

I'm riding with SONY on this one. And at this point in time you simply can't compare the two. PS3 just came out a couple months ago while the 360 has been out over a year. If you ask me, the 360 already lost by choosing to use DVD for its media storage. That was a bad move seeing that the HD market is starting to see a boom now. Thats really gonna hurt them in the future if you ask me. Whoever said you'll never need all that storage for games must be crazy.

[cruise]

(playing GRAW, RS: Vegas, and Oblivion are far better on the 360 + HDTV then my dual x1900XTX setup)
NoPeace - out

Apologies if this horrible mistake was already corrected, I didn't read the last few pages.

Nothing is better on consoles, consoles are for all intents and purposes crippled PCs.

If oblivion runs better on your console than on your computer there is some serious problem going on there, and it might also be time you learnt how to output gaming from your pc to your television, dvi output is equivalent to the highest quality video technology allows for, it is the same as hdmi without sound. :slapass:

[Soulburner]

That's because those are #1 console games, and #2 PC games. They were created for consoles and ported to PC. There is a reason why they can run better and look better on lesser hardware.

[cruise]

That's because those are #1 console games, and #2 PC games. They were created for consoles and ported to PC. There is a reason why they can run better and look better on lesser hardware.

The most efficient code in the world isn't going to make games look and run better with such a large performance gap.

I can almost be deceived for a minute with the realism of oblivion on PC with qarls texture pack, you should check it out if you get the chance.

When I switch to xbox360 I notice a severe degradation of quality, especially in clarity of objects and distance, putting that up on a gigantic screen just highlights that even more.