Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ps3's graphics are better than xbox360's

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 19, 2006 1:46:20 AM

ru seriuos, you think the ps3's graphics are inferior to xbox360's!!!!!! ok, first off, xbox is using an ati R... somehting, which is equal to the X1800Xl platinum, which is nice, ok, but the ps3 is using the brand new nv71 chip, which is better than teh 7900gtx superclocked!!!!!!!! the 7900gtx superclocked runs on an nv70 chip, so the ps3 chip is super advanced, and runs on the ibm "cell" processor, which is a graphically great processor, and super fast!, the only thing the xbox360 beats the ps3 in, is that it has more memory, the ps3 runs 256mb of ddr4 ram, while xbox360 runs 512mb of ddr3. i still like ps3, who cares if its $600 usd, i mean, i probly payed $600 usd on my computer in hardware and software in the past year!
xbox360 is a good deal, but i'd still rather get hte ps3, because i've seen the xbox360's graphcal power, and i've seen the ps3's (my cousin went to E3, and took video footage of it with his high-def sony handy cam) and i think the ps3's graphics still look way better, and it has the tilt sensor technology in the controller, which is really cool, and it uses high-def optical cables for the audio and video if you dont wana use the component cables, and i have the optical ports on my setup, and i cant wait to get mine (pre-order)

More about : ps3 graphics xbox360

May 19, 2006 1:49:57 AM

STFU you stupid noob.
May 19, 2006 1:53:08 AM

Quote:
STFU you stupid noob.


FLAMEWARS!!
PS3 Will !!p!0W3DN Xbox360!!!!! But i Like ATI its Canadian
Related resources
May 19, 2006 2:04:35 AM

Quote:

FLAMEWARS!!
PS3 Will !!p!0W3DN Xbox360!!!!! But i Like ATI its Canadian


At least have the decency to do it in style : lol internet war!
May 19, 2006 2:07:15 AM

:lol:  Theres a YTMND for every occasion.
May 19, 2006 2:56:12 AM

Plz do us a favour and dont return with post #2
May 19, 2006 3:00:00 AM

I assume you're talking to the noob rather then me, no?
May 19, 2006 3:09:11 AM

Almost everything you posted was incorrect.
May 19, 2006 3:31:28 AM

Quote:
STFU you stupid noob.


<3


seriously this is a Computer Forums so 1/2 of us couldnt give a shit about it....consoles suck there supposed to be cheaper but now there the same almost after games and there outdated with in 2-3 months and hmm my PC can run both games from both consoles because there all porting now.
So i got a Xbox360 Ps3 and everything else i want it to do...

PC GAMER 4 LIFE :D 
May 19, 2006 3:55:34 AM

Consoles = toys

Computers = powertools you can play with

Your Honor, I rest my case...

P.S. Don't even think about using This YTMND to WTFPWN me...
May 19, 2006 4:15:52 AM

Quote:
STFU you stupid noob.


Word.
May 19, 2006 4:34:42 AM

Quote:
I assume you're talking to the noob rather then me, no?

Of course. Its sad how uninformed the general public is. Hey buddy the 360's gfx chip is generation ahead of a 7900GT, yet was launched a year earlier(if the ps3 even launched this year which i'm having my doubts about) Chew on that.
May 19, 2006 4:40:55 AM

peronally, I have never noticed a difference between componet (analog) or HDMI and DVI on my tv.... they all seem to look about the same to me.
May 19, 2006 4:58:17 AM

If you’re going to waste our time with a useless post, please have the decency to use good grammar and spelling. We can process the post faster and move on to more compelling subject matter.
May 19, 2006 5:02:59 AM

I bet my NES uses less power and has a better price to performance ratio 8O
May 19, 2006 5:41:29 AM

Quote:
ru seriuos, you think the ps3's graphics are inferior to xbox360's!!!!!! ok, first off, xbox is using an ati R... somehting, which is equal to the X1800Xl platinum, which is nice, ok, but the ps3 is using the brand new nv71 chip, which is better than teh 7900gtx superclocked!!!!!!!! the 7900gtx superclocked runs on an nv70 chip, so the ps3 chip is super advanced, and runs on the ibm "cell" processor, which is a graphically great processor, and super fast!, the only thing the xbox360 beats the ps3 in, is that it has more memory, the ps3 runs 256mb of ddr4 ram, while xbox360 runs 512mb of ddr3. i still like ps3, who cares if its $600 usd, i mean, i probly payed $600 usd on my computer in hardware and software in the past year!
xbox360 is a good deal, but i'd still rather get hte ps3, because i've seen the xbox360's graphcal power, and i've seen the ps3's (my cousin went to E3, and took video footage of it with his high-def sony handy cam) and i think the ps3's graphics still look way better, and it has the tilt sensor technology in the controller, which is really cool, and it uses high-def optical cables for the audio and video if you dont wana use the component cables, and i have the optical ports on my setup, and i cant wait to get mine (pre-order)


Hey! this is CPU forum not of consoles or graphics!!!! so mind your next post! and please try to make your post informative like this one! :D 
May 19, 2006 6:00:47 AM

Oh Yea,

Well, my cousin went to your mommies house when your daddy wasn't home, and took video footage of it with his high-def sony handy cam.

You don't want to know about the graphics we saw....

and O yes wer serious
May 25, 2006 3:31:35 PM

Quote:
ru seriuos, you think the ps3's graphics are inferior to xbox360's!!!!!! ok, first off, xbox is using an ati R... somehting, which is equal to the X1800Xl platinum, which is nice, ok, but the ps3 is using the brand new nv71 chip, which is better than teh 7900gtx superclocked!!!!!!!! the 7900gtx superclocked runs on an nv70 chip, so the ps3 chip is super advanced, and runs on the ibm "cell" processor, which is a graphically great processor, and super fast!, the only thing the xbox360 beats the ps3 in, is that it has more memory, the ps3 runs 256mb of ddr4 ram, while xbox360 runs 512mb of ddr3. i still like ps3, who cares if its $600 usd, i mean, i probly payed $600 usd on my computer in hardware and software in the past year!
xbox360 is a good deal, but i'd still rather get hte ps3, because i've seen the xbox360's graphcal power, and i've seen the ps3's (my cousin went to E3, and took video footage of it with his high-def sony handy cam) and i think the ps3's graphics still look way better, and it has the tilt sensor technology in the controller, which is really cool, and it uses high-def optical cables for the audio and video if you dont wana use the component cables, and i have the optical ports on my setup, and i cant wait to get mine (pre-order)


ehem...
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p3.html
May 25, 2006 4:42:27 PM

Try to do your best in not posting meaningless hype numbers, those numbers don't mean shi7. Oh and PopWar, you have a pretty nice CPU there, I bet it smashes Conroe. Besides, XBOX360 pwns you. LOLWTFNOOB!!!!!!1111onene
May 25, 2006 5:08:06 PM

Okay noob, heres a litle know fact...

A 7900GT IS MORE ADVANCED THEN THE NV71!

THE CELL PROCESSOR IS BETTER THAN THE THREE PROCESSORS IN THE 360, BUT THE 360 HAS ENOUGH POWER AT A LOWER PRICE. THE CELL IS OVERKILL FOR THIS GEN, MABEY IF SONY HAD A NV80 IT WOULD WIN BUT XBOX WINS THIS ROUND IN PREFORMANCE.

THE 360 HAS A DX10 CARD IN IT

BLUERAYS ONLY USE IS FOR HD MOVIES, A PH-DVD WOULD DO BETTER IN PRICE AND STORAGE.

OVER ALL XBOX 360 WINS BECAUSE OF PRICE PREFORMANCE RATIO, IT IS FOCUSED ON GAMING SO IT WINS

I hope you learned somthing little sony noob.
May 25, 2006 5:20:38 PM

Good graphics isn't what makes a game good. Who really cares what's inside them, what matters is the games they're going to make.
May 25, 2006 5:27:56 PM

I agree, but a good price/preformance ratio is necissary. you can not tell me that you would play a game that looked terrible and locked up all the time just because it had the best gameplay ever.

I addition to that the 360 has the following:

Halo 3
Gears of War
Call of Duty 2
Saints Row
GTA 4
Splinter Cell

plus SM 4.0 and old XBOX games
May 25, 2006 5:32:17 PM

Quote:
ru seriuos, you think the ps3's graphics are inferior to xbox360's!!!!!! ok, first off, xbox is using an ati R... somehting, which is equal to the X1800Xl platinum, which is nice, ok, but the ps3 is using the brand new nv71 chip, which is better than teh 7900gtx superclocked!!!!!!!! the 7900gtx superclocked runs on an nv70 chip, so the ps3 chip is super advanced, and runs on the ibm "cell" processor, which is a graphically great processor, and super fast!, the only thing the xbox360 beats the ps3 in, is that it has more memory, the ps3 runs 256mb of ddr4 ram, while xbox360 runs 512mb of ddr3. i still like ps3, who cares if its $600 usd, i mean, i probly payed $600 usd on my computer in hardware and software in the past year!
xbox360 is a good deal, but i'd still rather get hte ps3, because i've seen the xbox360's graphcal power, and i've seen the ps3's (my cousin went to E3, and took video footage of it with his high-def sony handy cam) and i think the ps3's graphics still look way better, and it has the tilt sensor technology in the controller, which is really cool, and it uses high-def optical cables for the audio and video if you dont wana use the component cables, and i have the optical ports on my setup, and i cant wait to get mine (pre-order)


In the slightly altered words of Apu, "Thank you please don't come again."

1) Xbox360s GPU is equivalent or better than X1900 since it uses unified shader architecture which is what DX10 cards will have. Has the same number of shader units though.
2) PS3s GPU is same chip as 7900 series. And its gonna run at 550MHz so its clocks are much lower than that of the 7900GTX.
3) Both systems have 512MB of RAM. Xbox360 just has all the memory as system memory and is GDDR3 while the PS3 splits its memory into two halves. 256MB is GDDR3 and 256MB is XDR but both the CPU and GPU have access to all 512MB if needed.
4) You can do optical audio connection with Xbox360 as well as the original Xbox. HDMI is only there for it attempting to be a low cost Bluray player.
5) The tilt feature on the PS3 controller is pretty much only there because A) they didn't want Nintendo to show them up and B) they didn't want to pay royalties for the dual shock technology. I'd much rather have the rumble feature.

You're obviously a young kid with mommy and daddys money who doesn't have a fucking clue.

And S7A88Y, stop looking at raw FLOP numbers. Theres more to processing performance than that. In reality, both processors suck ass but games developers prefer to use the Xbox360 CPU because 3 crappy cores are better than 1 crappy core with some processing elements on it. The only saving grace of this generation of consoles is the power of the GPUs. A P4 or Athlon64 would be a far better processor for either console to use but they're too expensive. The PowerPC core(s) at the heart of both CPUs is not the same as whats in a Mac. And the Geforce 7900 series of cards is the G71 core buddy. Just a 90nm version of G70.
May 25, 2006 5:35:42 PM

ofcourse it will be better, they took a couple of years extra to develop it :lol: 

but the cell processor uses new technologies, ive read that the first generation of games dont take all the advances of the cell processor because game developers have to find out how to make games for it. Xbox just has an great advantage with the 360.

PS2 wasnt the the console with the best graphics but still sold the most consoles, so graphics dont say much.

But ofcourse the PS3 still isnt out so I could be entirely wrong :lol: 
May 25, 2006 5:42:48 PM

For $499 it better be!
May 25, 2006 5:44:39 PM

Quote:
I addition to that the 360 has the following:

Halo 3
Gears of War
Call of Duty 2
Saints Row
GTA 4
Splinter Cell

plus SM 4.0 and old XBOX games



Ok and PS3 has Final Fantasy XIII, Gran Turismo series, Call of Duty 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, etc. Plus PS2 and PS1 series games.

Xbox360 can only play back limited Xbox 1 titles and there issues with even those.

Both consoles are on par with each other. It all comes down to how good the developer is with getting the most out of the hardware and making a good game. I want both for different titles on each. But I won't buy a 360 until it gets the 65nm processor and runs cooler. And I won't buy a PS3 until its $400 at least.
May 25, 2006 5:57:56 PM

Quote:
ofcourse it will be better, they took a couple of years extra to develop it :lol: 

but the cell processor uses new technologies, ive read that the first generation of games dont take all the advances of the cell processor because game developers have to find out how to make games for it. Xbox just has an great advantage with the 360.

PS2 wasnt the the console with the best graphics but still sold the most consoles, so graphics dont say much.

But ofcourse the PS3 still isnt out so I could be entirely wrong :lol: 


No console's first generation of games fully takes advantages of the hardware. The only part of the PS3 thats had real development time is the Cell but thats because its for more than just the PS3. I think the major delays in the PS3 has been the delay in the Blu-ray standard and in Nvidia getting them the GPU.

In the end Sony will have better games and sell more consoles. Is it because the PS3 is more capable? Not necessarily. Its because its Sony. Sony is a Japanese company and the Japanese pretty much will buy anything Sony gives them. Pretty much all the best developers are Japanese and they work primarily with Sony or Nintendo. Will the Japanese even think twice before buying a $500-600 console (whatever that is in yen). No. Look at the PS2 vs. Xbox. The Xbox was far more capable of a system. But Sony's console sales remained strong and they continually got most of the best games (most of Microsofts best games come from.....*drum roll*.......Microsoft). The Japanese market is the market Sony cares about. Americans are just a side thought to them.

Now thats not set in stone of course. Sony has pissed a lot of people off with the announcement of the systems price and that it won't have HDMI on the $500 console. Granted with American parents having the complete lack of ability to say no to their kids, they will fight with each other to buy their little boy or girl the console. Even pay $1000 or more on ebay for one as they did with the Xbox360. But with the Xbox360 being up to $200 cheaper and a whole year ahead in terms of the development process, Microsoft has a chance to take a huge share of Sony's business.

In the end we'll have to wait and see.
May 25, 2006 6:44:41 PM

First people who compare modern consoles to older ones and bemoan the price need to take a basic economics class. We have a thing called inflation. A $200 console in 1991 would cost $282 in 2005. If the Wii is released at the same price point, or even a little higher, than the Game Cube. It will be a cheaper console factoring in inflation.

Secondly, as to Sony having better games I'd contest that. The only game exclusively Sony that are any good in my opinion are Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy. I think Halo 1+2 is the best FPS shooters out on the console market. And splinter cell ripes MGS apart. But that is my opinion, and that is what it comes down to for who has he "better" games. I predict either a MS market share win because Sony has messed up their PS3 with the price point and forcing Blu-ray on everyone, not to mention that the cell processor is overhyped. Nintendo might also take the one spot because they are going a totally different direction than either MS or Sony. Either way I hope Sony goes down because their attitude is similiar to the Atari guys back in the "We can crap in a box and sell it to them" days.
May 25, 2006 6:47:07 PM

I know what you're saying, I'm just stating that what's inside the counsole isn't what makes games great. For example; games like Geometry Wars and Hexic are widely popular on the 360, and those are hardly take a fraction of the hardware that's inside.
May 25, 2006 7:16:15 PM

I think Tycho(or whatever the guys real name is) at Penny Arcade said it best that I don't spend imaginary dollars from the past. I deal with today money. I don't care what something cost 10 years ago and what the cost of it would be today with inflation. The fact is that if I take a $100 bill from 1991 and take it to store, they're going to let me buy $100 worth of stuff, not the value of that $100 from 1991 adjusted for inflation.

Sorry. Didn't mean that Sony has all the best games. I'm just saying that the majority of best sellers end up on Sony's consoles. And I say that as one of the biggest supporters for the original Xbox you'll ever find. I preordered my Xbox for $10 in the fall of 2000 and picked it up on the day after release. The day after only because I preordered it in Orlando and was in Melbourne at college and had to have my dad pick it up for me. I didn't even buy a PS2 until I started playing Final Fantasy XI and wanted a 2nd account but didn't have 2 computers.

Nintendo right now is like the cookie lying on the floor that could be picked, up dusted off, and still be delicious (sorry I just ate a cookie). They have the potential to actually get back into the console race with the Revolution (sorry I don't call it the Wii unless I'm making fun of it). Its true that graphics aren't everything. Gameplay and story is what matters. But while to me the controller isn't enough to make me buy it, it might change the way people play games and others might be more attracted to it for that. I kinda see the controller complicating the enjoyment of playing games. But I also see it as a way to get fat lazy kids up off their ass and maybe move a little bit.
May 25, 2006 7:26:02 PM

I'll start by saying this post is in the wrong place.

Now XBOX made a great gaming machine in the 360, but they looked at it via the same way a PC guy would. Load up on ram and stay with who we know. XBOX 360 DDR3 512MB and ATI. I love ATI even if they aren't American... Sony made way for a new processor worked with IBM and others to create Cell they increase the mem bandwith and decreased the size so what. We don't even know the final specs.

Finally let look at the Sega Saturn truly better on paper then PS1 but it lost in the end. Same with Dreamcast first to the market low cost great Machine but to few cool games after launch. A system is defined by it's games not by the sum of it's parts.
May 25, 2006 7:56:29 PM

Lol i was wondering why everyone here who has an interest in the ps3 keeps trying to sound neutral! There afraid of getting flamed by all the Xbox fanboys :lol:  goes to show how ridiculous this is! I for one support the Ps3 fully and have no interest in the Xbox what so ever!!! Ps3 all the way! And i dont give a crap about you Xbox fanboys sending death threats :lol:  in your anger so dont bother! I wont be back on this ridiculous thread anyway so chow 8)
May 25, 2006 8:02:51 PM

You my new friend, give us sony boys a bad name.
Please fix your horrible gramatical(probably spelled wrong) errors.

PS: I am buying a PS3 over a 360.
May 25, 2006 8:09:13 PM

Quote:
ru seriuos, you think the ps3's graphics are inferior to xbox360's!!!!!! ok, first off, xbox is using an ati R... somehting, which is equal to the X1800Xl platinum, which is nice, ok, but the ps3 is using the brand new nv71 chip, which is better than teh 7900gtx superclocked!!!!!!!! the 7900gtx superclocked runs on an nv70 chip, so the ps3 chip is super advanced, and runs on the ibm "cell" processor, which is a graphically great processor, and super fast!, the only thing the xbox360 beats the ps3 in, is that it has more memory, the ps3 runs 256mb of ddr4 ram, while xbox360 runs 512mb of ddr3. i still like ps3, who cares if its $600 usd, i mean, i probly payed $600 usd on my computer in hardware and software in the past year!
xbox360 is a good deal, but i'd still rather get hte ps3, because i've seen the xbox360's graphcal power, and i've seen the ps3's (my cousin went to E3, and took video footage of it with his high-def sony handy cam) and i think the ps3's graphics still look way better, and it has the tilt sensor technology in the controller, which is really cool, and it uses high-def optical cables for the audio and video if you dont wana use the component cables, and i have the optical ports on my setup, and i cant wait to get mine (pre-order)
Actually the PS3's GPU is a Geforce 7900GT clocked at 550MHz with 256MB of slow DDR3, which is slower than the Geforce 7900GTX. The Xbox360's GPU is unlike any GPUs currently available. It's not necessarily more powerful, but the architecture is currently unique to the GPU world.
May 25, 2006 8:43:24 PM

May 25, 2006 11:23:19 PM

Agh,
I was hoping this thread died a few days ago. "Spike" hit the nail on the head(no pun intended).
A console is a console, is a freaking console. You can't modify or upgrade the hardwired parts. So, play the games! If you like it, buy it! That's it's, who cares what the crap parts are inside.

The games and how they play are all that matter.
May 25, 2006 11:30:55 PM

Quote:

Nintendo right now is like the cookie lying on the floor that could be picked, up dusted off, and still be delicious

ROFL dude, that must have been the funniest thing posted on these forums lately. Be very sure that people will be quoting you on that one. :D 

Kudos to you for bringing up the controller part into this discussion btw... I also think most of us are forgetting that the 'actual' enjoyment is defined by more than just the visual experience. Special effects, story line, monster AI, etc is likely what consumers will care about in the end.

Heck, I'd like to see anyone try and selling me a concept which lacks one of the aforementioned... Just won't happen.
You see, I care about the big picture just like most of you (even if you are too blind to realize it yet?) :roll:

So to all of you: stop acting like a bunch of fanboys and go for whatever choice that will make you happy...

That's the whole point.
May 26, 2006 12:34:11 AM

Quote:
STFU you stupid noob.


Word.Letter
May 26, 2006 12:39:41 AM

Quote:
A system is defined by it's games not by the sum of it's parts.

That's why the PS2 pwn3d the original Xbox even though it had grossly inferior hardware. It was first to market by a year, and therefore got all the good games. The same thing MIGHT happen with the 360.

Price is also a deciding factor in the purchase of a console. The Xbox 360 costs $300-400, and when the PS3 comes out, the price might drop. The PS3 is supposedly going to cost $500-600, which is a fairly large amount of money. If Nintendo can bring the Wii (WEE!) to market for under $200, it might beat the 360 and PS3 because of its price alone. Plus, Nintendo makes the friendly little kid games, so all the 6-year olds will want one to go with their GameBoys. I can certainly say that at $200, I'd consider purchasing a Wii.
May 26, 2006 3:50:26 AM

Are you an idiot or did you make this thread just to piss me off? We've been over this, and the entire subject has been owned by ME. I'll repeat my previous posts if this thread's idiocy gets too out of hand.
May 26, 2006 1:28:40 PM

Quote:
peronally, I have never noticed a difference between componet (analog) or HDMI and DVI on my tv.... they all seem to look about the same to me.


thats because 1080p is 1080p. . . it don't matter how you get it there.
May 26, 2006 5:32:38 PM

Who cares? Wii will eat them both for breakfast anyways...
May 26, 2006 6:02:43 PM

Dude are you serious..... you have to get real here, and maybe umm.... I dont know get some facts straigt. Ok so with the ps3, you have the bottlenecked slow cell which has 9 cores in total, 20 % of this cell is used to process the os, one spe is also used for redundacy. These spes arent even fast enough/versatile enough to run an os..... so we have 8 slow cores, and one mediocre ppe core. Then lets get to the graphics subsystem. The gfx chip is a G70.... run on 90nm silicon, 24 pixel shading pipes, 8 vertex shaders for a total of 32 pipes, they all run at 550 mhz. Now the xbox 360 gpu features a more advanced instruction set which has many features of DX 10, it also has a much more optimised archetecture, 48 half pipes which may be configured as pixel shaders or vertex shaders, this archetecture is much more controlable to the developer and inturn much more optimised, because if you have a heavily pixel shaded scene, the developers may dedicate most of those pipes if not all to pixel shading. It also has 10 mb of embedded dram, that can handle Z-stenciling, and AA, AF, this takes that load off of the gpu. Also the 360's gpu renderes HDR much much faster, as it is done as a separate process, not rendered by the pixel shaders, the RSX uses the pixel shaders to render hdr, causing a big hit in performance, add aa, af, youll see your frame rates decrease and decrease on the RSX in the ps3, but not on the 360. Now the 360 is much more balanced, easier to code for and optimise. For example have you even seen any of the PS3 playable games at E3... have you noticed how bad they look ?, and how far they fall short of the visual bar when being compared to the xbox 360 games.... I will tell you right now, that the ps3 is not as power full as the 360 for gaming. PERIOD. And why the hell would you pay 600 $ for a console.... honestly upgrade your computer.... ill never spend 600 $ on a console, especially on a sony wunderbox, which is a glorified piece of garbage. How do you sony fans get tricked more then once, do you remember the PS2 at e3 ? 75 million polygons per second ring any bells, well that never happened it came out around 7 million. Also where are the toy story graphics on your ps2, I dont see them. You sony ps3 fans may hold onto your false hopes and promises, but that will only last for a few months, I dont know how anyone even thinks of claiming that the ps3s graphics are better.... its sad, considering the real in-game demos look terrible, and run poorly.
May 26, 2006 6:20:35 PM

Quote:
you have the bottlenecked slow cell which has 9 cores in total


No it doesn't. It has one PowerPC core surrounded by 7 SPEs(the 8th one that is there only becomes active if one of the others fails). The SPEs are not a processing core. They can't do anything by themselves. They are just told to perform a calculation and then return the result. They can all work together but thats only because the PowerPC core tells them to. Its the scheduler basically.

The only real power of either console is the graphics chip. The processors of both are piles of garbage. Except the 360 has three piles of garbage instead of one pile of garbage and some stray bottles lying next to it.

Yes the Xbox360 is easier to program because it has such a well integrated development framework around it instead of mixed and matched pieces. Thats not to say its better though. But another advantage of the 360s programming environment is that like the original Xbox, it allows developers to very easily port their code over to a PC especially once Vista gets here (not that I like Vista that much due to its requirements).
May 26, 2006 6:28:27 PM

Quote:
you have the bottlenecked slow cell which has 9 cores in total


No it doesn't. It has one PowerPC core surrounded by 7 SPEs(the 8th one that is there only becomes active if one of the others fails). The SPEs are not a processing core. They can't do anything by themselves. They are just told to perform a calculation and then return the result. They can all work together but thats only because the PowerPC core tells them to. Its the scheduler basically.

The only real power of either console is the graphics chip. The processors of both are piles of garbage. Except the 360 has three piles of garbage instead of one pile of garbage and some stray bottles lying next to it.

Yes the Xbox360 is easier to program because it has such a well integrated development framework around it instead of mixed and matched pieces. Thats not to say its better though. But another advantage of the 360s programming environment is that like the original Xbox, it allows developers to very easily port their code over to a PC especially once Vista gets here (not that I like Vista that much due to its requirements). I agree with every point you made.
May 26, 2006 6:45:48 PM

8 spes.. + 1 ppe core equals.... 9!!!, didnt you notice how i broke it down saying one is used for redudancy ? I knew what the spes are for, but since the nature of who I was replying to, I figured Id keep it as dulled down as possible.
May 26, 2006 7:11:03 PM

Both consoles do not have ideal hardware for gaming, but the Xbox360 is a little better.
May 26, 2006 7:17:19 PM

Power means nothing in games consoles. In fact usualy the most powerfull console is the one that finishes last. NeoGeo,3DO,TurboExpress,GameGear,Nomad,Sega Master System,Xbox all these systems at there respective times where more powerfull then the systems that eventualy got the most sales (there are probably even more then what I can think of hmmm oh yeah Vectrex was the bomb at the time but it was too expesnive...) Nintendo's Wii might actualy win this time mostly becouse of price but another thing is the controller if they can fine tune it enough I think people will get more involved in the games and have a realy good user experience. To wrap this post up I do have to say I believe the PS3 to be the most powerfull of the 3 new systems but in the past this has always been a bad thing.
May 26, 2006 8:16:49 PM

I dont think its the most powerfull at all, look at the games that are actually in-game and playable, none look near as good as GOW, Mass Effect, F.E.A.R, Bio shock.. etc. Look at Resistance fall of man, it doesnt have one single good graphical quality about it... it looks worse then half life 2. GT HD, looks soo bad the paper crowd, horrible textures, bad pixel shading, horrible environnement... etc the list goes on, the fact of the matter is every e3 sony ALWAYS lies about the system specs and performance estimates of their game consoles, and atm they arent showing anything that proves this performance.
!