What's the mood around E3? PS3 and Xbox 360 graphics compared
by Ben Zackheim 
{ May 17th 2005 at 9:05PM }
Nothing makes me happier than to witness the end of all the speculation about next-gen consoles. Sure, we'll have to
tolerate tweaks to the design and the specs, but for the most part we get the idea. What does this mean? It means we
can focus on games, as it should be.
One problem. If you take a look in the crystal ball you'll see that we're about to crash head-on with the "who has
better graphics" discussion. Remember, the "who has better games" roundtable will only happen after all three consoles
are launched.
(Since Nintendo has made it clear that the horsepower fight is below them, we'll spare them the heat here.)
I've read a number of articles in the last few weeks that were in awe of the fact that we haven't been talking about
hardware/horsepower specs for the last few months. The recent conventional wisdom has been that gamers are more
interested in the games. But now that we've seen some PS3 and Xbox 360 game clips side by side, I think the horsepower
talk is about to explode.
If you compare the best clips that Sony has to offer with the best clips that Microsoft has to offer, you clearly see
the PS3's superiority. Now, this could be due to a number of things. First and foremost — are the PS3 clips "real"? Do
they really show off the in-game capabilities of the console, or are they sweetened, pre-rendered clips of what we may
see someday if a developer ever finds itself working with $100 million? If they are real, then Microsoft has some
soul-searching to do. After all, they're accustomed to being the hardware kings, and they seem to think they still are
with the 360. One look at the specs, though, and you can see that's not the case, at least on paper. And in in-game
clips. All of this makes the burning question right now, have they been caught with their pants down by Sony's "final"
specs?
This is my read of the prevailing winds at E3, so far. If you're here, and you see it differently, we'd love to hear
from you. As an example of what I'm talking about, compare PS3's Fight Night: Round 3 with Xbox
360's Dead or Alive 4. Both of them look
amazing. But the PS3 has the clear advantage. If you don't like these choices, then go ahead and take your pick from
the other titles at GameTrailers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
carlos @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
i think the best graphics goto ps3
it still has a year in development and it already looks better than most xbox previews.
the best looking preview i've seen for the 360 is Gears of War
but
the best looking for the ps3 is killzone 2. if that is the power the ps3 can produce than its pretty obvious who is better.
Sassanix @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Ps3 wins it all as the better gaming system... not like Xbox 360 which it says lemme connect your cell phone to your brain and your friends to your xbox 360 WTF!!!
Pete @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
The killzone video is a fake....a UK CGI firm made it. IT IS NOT REAL FOOTAGE!
Bleep @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I wasn't at E3. But wow, you guys are easy. The KILLZONE trailer was incredible... and 100% CGI. The FIGHT NIGHT trailer was pretty good... and 100% CGI. You can't take away from the fact that the KILLZONE trailer was utterly brilliant. But I've seen many a Japanese trailer--RESIDENT EVIL trailers come to mind--that look fantastic... but are 100% CGI. Guys... listen... if games look this good then that's good for all gamers. But please remain objective until Sony's claims are proven.
Matty K @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
There should not be any deliberation over the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. Microsoft had announced that Playstation 3 was superior according to hardware power alone. So hands down, Playstation 3 is the more powerful, in turn churning out better graphics than 360.
ZOINKS!
SpL @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Well i would choose for the xbox 360 but the ps3 movies look great.
but stiil i will not make a confirmed answer just becouse i want to play the games my self to see it with my own eyes allot of people on the forums everywhere are atalking about that the ps3 movie are not in game and blah blah and stuff but you can say the same about the xbox360.
for now i will say xbox360 just cuz i don't trust sony entertainment.
like someone comment on killzone just look how the players aim its like he has an aimbot or something. i was like yeah yeah just an fanboy talking then i watched the video a few times and yes really he aime above him instantly on the target i was like WTF? but stiil if its real it looks stunishing. don't get me wrong but i am a casual gamer and will end up with both of them.
p.s. excuuse my poor grammar cuz iam from europe and english well isin't my strongest subject :P
Peace
Eric @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
If Sony is to be believed and Killzone is really that good (and holy crap is it ever good), then Xbox is like that ship that was sailing along until a big giant asteroid hit it (in the groin)and it vaporized it. You know that one I'm talking about? Anyways, that is one painful blow to Microsofts "I have a bigger (blank) then you" routine.
Know what I'm worried about? REVOLUTION. What the hell is Nintendo thinking? I like the idea of playing older games on one system, but i don't wanna buy a NES i want a new damn system, and not something that is just marginally better. I'm really really hoping I will wake up tommorow and find out it was all a (hahaha) joke and Nintendo will unveil it's REAL Revolution. Even the damn logo is crap!
Remember that helmet thing? Nintendo On? THAT would be a revolution....oops this is not the right place to put this discussion is it?;)
Carla @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Are you people stoned? Those Sony trailers are 100% computer graphics, not gameplay. Yikes. Sony could tell you the PS3 makes lemonade and you'd believe them.
Carla @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#6: "stunishing?" That's the funniest word I've ever seen anyone make-up. Bravo!
drswellz @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Well, i think that after you see PS3's tech demos and gameplay clips,it is just a matter of common sense that PS3 is capable of much, much, much better graphics.
Fight night for the PS3 was shown REAL TIME and running on the hardware like the EA games guy said there. It looked absolutely amazing.
Also, Everyone is debating on the fact that some clips taken from X360 look like current gen! It is hard to tell the diffence in some games. That's not the case with the PS3, though.
I must admit that yesterday sony scared me. yes, i got LITERALLY scared by what the PS3 can do.
Dmitri @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
O my god. You ignorant people. IF!!! you have ever played Killzone. You will know that, that is how the game is done. They mix between your control and the pc's control (Hand waving, gun disappearing). It is 100% real. Trust me. And how the hell can anyone say that the I-8 footage was computer graphics? You saw it from the 1st person perspective AND you got to see that cool new spider thing slice you in 2. Just look at the Unreal footage, it clearly showed that it is all in real-time. So take that, don't be hatin'.
bil @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
XBOX is powerful, and PS3 is twice more powerful. This is a fact.
Already, comparing processing power between two is radiculous.
But from the demos, there is no way for XBOX to go over PS3's
performance. If you compare the graphics of 'Dead or Alive 4' and
that of 'Fighting Night', clear winner is 'Fighting Night'.
DoA4 is even cheating (pre-rendering) to make it look better.
Throughout demos in E3, Microsoft was showing pre-rendered movies
to show XBOX360's performance. If they had really nice console,
they wouldn't have done such a thing. Meanwhile PS3 is showing real
time demo which blew everyone's mind.
I'm quite suspicious about XBox360. They lies. They don't respect.
And everything Xbox360 claimed before is likely to be achived on PS3
quite nicely. And Xbox360 turned out not to be readied for what MS
said.
Backword compatibility? It's a joke. They know they can't do it
perfectly. Final Fantasy? Xbox got an old one. And now even Nintendo
has full support of Square-Enix. What is the good thing about 360?
except for bunch of bloody FPS games.
Boomhauer @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/615/615531p1.html
potholders @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
i dont know yall. i was pretty immpressed by the xbox360, but the guy fight night dude was controlling the demo in real time. if you dont believe me check out the video on gametrailers.com. that guys's totally manipulating the camera angles. i just hope that the power demonstrated is the one we finally pick up at retailers. i do remember hearing that a ps2 could run toy story in real time. my ass! but if they do pull it off, my hat and my pants off to sony.
Boomhauer @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
The more I watch that Killzone vid, the more it doesn't look like a game. It really doesn't seem to move like a game at all. But if it is, MS is in trouble.
And I love how some of you are 100% certain its real. How would you know? Were you controlling it? (Same goes for the people who say it is for sure not real).
Bleep @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Well clearly Sony has done an excellent job of making you all believe that the KILLZONE trailer is actually gameplay footage. It isn't, but I guess you enjoy hating Microsoft so much, you'll find any excuse to encourage its demise.
CapAmerica @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Compairing DoA4 and Fight Night: Round 3 is pretty stupid. They games aren't done by the same company and for crying out loud DoA4 is pretty much just a Xbox game with a few updates. Also DoA is more of a live action Anime style game while Fight Night: Round 3 is realistic.
At least compair two of the same EA games or something.
Compairing DoA4 to Fight Night is like compairing Super Mario Sunshine to Halo.
Dmitri @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Ahh f*ck it. Ive had enough of sony. They've lost my $ with PS2. With the whole "HDD IS NOW!" thing and the NO UPDATES ON GAMES! ESPECIALLY THE GAMES WITH GLITCHES / CHEATERS. I am ofcourse talking about the online. Im going for 360. Sony doesnt give a sh*t about the gamers. All they care about is if they get your money or not. I am 100% sure that PS3 will have a problem, if not several. Sony always finds a way to screw the people over. No one has to believe me, but that doesnt mean im wrong. XBOX360 HERE I COME!
JJ @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
The PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360, Hands down. But most of the PS3 Trailers were pre-rendered BS that may become a game in 2-3 years. For those who think that Killzone was real, how can you play a FPS without a crossair? Not Real. PG3 = Pre-Renderd.
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
In my opinion, the two machines are pretty much equal in hardware. The PS3 has 1 PPC Core + 7 (note this is still subject to change before launch) SPEs. The Xbox360 has 3 PPC Cores. This means they each have strengths in different areas. For example, the cell processor is capable of 2 trillion floating point operations per second, whereas the 360 appears to be capable of about 1.2 trillion. What does this mean for games? Well, its hard to say. Most games spend only 15% of their frame doing floating point ops on the CPU, and the rest is more general purpose. From that angle, the 360 seems better suited since it has 3 symmetric cores running at 3.2 ghz each, whereas the cell processor must rely on its single PPC core at 3.2ghz to perform the same computations. Add to this the fact that the Cell processor has no hardware branch support, but the 360 does.
Next we move onto the GPU. According to Sony, their GPU is capable of 1.8 Teraflops. First off, let me be the first to call bullshit. We don't yet have comparable figures from Microsoft, so its hard to compare the two in this arena. The main thing I take away from this however, is that of the 2.0 teraflops the PS3 is capable of, 1.8 are from the GPU, and not the CELL. This is pretty interesting to me considering Sony spent an estimated $2 billion developing this processor.
I think its fairly safe to say that Sony is working their hype/marketing machine once again. Microsoft and Nintendo have given us far more reaslitic expectations of what their hardware can do. Clearly, we cannot trust what Sony says at face value.
Just wait to see the FINAL versions of the games, when they are in your hands. Sony, MS, and Ninty can say just about anything right now, because they won't have to back up their statements for at least six months.
Oh, and just for the record, Tekken and Killzone were CLEARLY pre-rendered. If you're aware of what 1.8 tflops on a GPU and 2 tfs on a CPU mean, you understand that the killzone video would be extremely unrealistic even at 3.5 tflops. Just wait for the final version. Tech demos and FMVs mean nothing...
As for the Fight Night demo - I was also unimpressed. The demo they showed merely contained two fighters (from the wasite up most of the time), a skybox, and some ropes in the background. We need to have higher standards than this. To be impressive you need to show a large number of characters on screen at once, fully lit and shaded, fully interacting, and all realtime.
The most impressive footage I've seen of any REALTIME game is Gears of War and UT 2007. Surprised? Both consoles support them. Thats because they are one and the same :)
Sonic_Extreme @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
A " from a post in the inquierer.net
"SO IBM hypersters are claiming their cell chip can do two teraflops per second. what about the lastest power5??? Go to IBM.com and find out here.
There you can see the latest and fastest power5 dual core processors can do 56.78 Gigaflop/sec in an eight way configuration. That's 16 Power5 cores combined, and the total is only 56.78 gigaflops for 16 lowly Power5 cores, or, about three gigaflops/per core. which makes sense, a float point operation takes more than one clock to finish, and each power5 core has probably two or more FP units...
So, there is no magic, you can't possibly do more than one instruction in one clock in one unit. You can do multiple if you have multiple units. To have 1000gigaflops, you will need 500 units each operate at two gigaflops.
A teraflop means 1000 gigaflops, so IBM is claiming that one PS3 is 2000% faster than an eight way power5 server selling at half a million bucks??
This is stupid."
and the shortcut to the Ibm link is
http://www1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/campaigns/benchmarks/hpc.html
He makes interesting points. I still say I wanna see those in game play and then i will be a believer. Till now for me sony has lied before and will continue to lie. Until I see in in my TV 1 year from now I wont believe Sony at all.
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
In my opinion, the two machines are pretty much equal in hardware. The PS3 has 1 PPC Core + 7 (note this is still subject to change before launch) SPEs. The Xbox360 has 3 PPC Cores. This means they each have strengths in different areas. For example, the cell processor is capable of 2 trillion floating point operations per second, whereas the 360 appears to be capable of about 1.2 trillion. What does this mean for games? Well, its hard to say. Most games spend only 15% of their frame doing floating point ops on the CPU, and the rest is more general purpose. From that angle, the 360 seems better suited since it has 3 symmetric cores running at 3.2 ghz each, whereas the cell processor must rely on its single PPC core at 3.2ghz to perform the same computations. Add to this the fact that the Cell processor has no hardware branch support, but the 360 does.
Next we move onto the GPU. According to Sony, their GPU is capable of 1.8 Teraflops. First off, let me be the first to call bullshit. We don't yet have comparable figures from Microsoft, so its hard to compare the two in this arena. The main thing I take away from this however, is that of the 2.0 teraflops the PS3 is capable of, 1.8 are from the GPU, and not the CELL. This is pretty interesting to me considering Sony spent an estimated $2 billion developing this processor.
I think its fairly safe to say that Sony is working their hype/marketing machine once again. Microsoft and Nintendo have given us far more reaslitic expectations of what their hardware can do. Clearly, we cannot trust what Sony says at face value.
Just wait to see the FINAL versions of the games, when they are in your hands. Sony, MS, and Ninty can say just about anything right now, because they won't have to back up their statements for at least six months.
Oh, and just for the record, Tekken and Killzone were CLEARLY pre-rendered. If you're aware of what 1.8 tflops on a GPU and 2 tfs on a CPU mean, you understand that the killzone video would be extremely unrealistic even at 3.5 tflops. Just wait for the final version. Tech demos and FMVs mean nothing...
As for the Fight Night demo - I was also unimpressed. The demo they showed merely contained two fighters (from the wasite up most of the time), a skybox, and some ropes in the background. We need to have higher standards than this. To be impressive you need to show a large number of characters on screen at once, fully lit and shaded, fully interacting, and all realtime.
The most impressive footage I've seen of any REALTIME game is Gears of War and UT 2007. Surprised? Both consoles support them. Thats because they are one and the same :)
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Woops - I went a little power hungry with the first pair of numbers. I meant 200 GFLOPS and 120 GFLOPS :) NOT 2.0 TFLOPS and 1.2 TFLOPS. Heheheh
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
One other thing to mention - the Xbox360 has 3 altivec units, where as the PS3 only has 1. Now, clearly the PS3 is in far lesser need for the altivecs, but it is still interesting to consider just how different these processors are.
The main thing to take away from this all is that Microsoft is demonstrating REAL and PLAYABLE games at E3, whereas Sony is simply showing pre-rendered movies. Make your opinion based on the final released products :)
Boomhauer @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Excellent points 22,but are you saying that the Killzone demo wouldn't be possible even on Sony's possibly inflated specs?
Sonic_Extreme @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I agree with you CB4D 100% and I couldn't have said the first paragraph any better. People dont really know the both are pretty much almost the same. Just using different architeture. Yes I think in true horsepower goes to the cell. But in real time and games there is no winner yet. Both cpu's are impressive MS had to go another route due to the spe's are probrably propriatary to sony, ibm and toshiba. So Ibm had to make another way to achieve almost the same power for MS. The winner here is IBM making mad cash from both Giant companies.
JBob250 @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Wow... #12. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I mean... it's almost all backward. Look at what the new thing is... dual core processors, you know why? More things at once, faster. Guess what console video games are about? More things, better things, faster things. PS3 have the power of 2 cards, but thats put together, not working in tandem.
Second of all... xbox gets an old FF? For starters FF7 was shown during the PS3 conference... and thats because its just a demonstration. They did the same thing with the N64.
Now... about MS's lies? Come on people, its obvious PS3 is always trying to be the "image", fooling and hyping everything. Look at the loud PS3 controller compared to the elegant, mild 360 design. Which, btw you MUST see in person.
Back to the "lies", most of PS3 was rendered, not 360. Look at the trailer for Killzone, thats disgraceful to the consumer.
What a great example of a fanboy, obviously looking at it from one angle.
WHAT NOW SONY FANBOY'S? SUDDENLY POWER IS ALL THAT MATTERS? You'll believe anything Sony tells you to believe. You didnt think that for the current-gen systems... ps2's power is laughable compared to the xbox's... and yet the fanboys stick to hype, characters, and image. GIVE ME A BREAK.
Bleep @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Joystiq, your "read of the prevailing winds" is Sony biased. You can't honestly look me in the net face and tell me you think those trailers are gameplay? They are obviously pre-rendered. They are computer-generated movies, not gameplay. You guys are creating controversy just to get people to hit your site. Shame.
h8er stopper @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
ok....to all u h8ers out there... technically, the ps3 videos are CGI becuase its COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGERY and PS3 is a comptuer???? so technically its legit k?
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Anyway you look at it, PS3 beats 360 from a hardware standpoint...
2 TFLOPs!?
A GPU packing more than 300 million transistors!? Clocked at 550 MHz!?
3.2 GHZ of memory bandwidth between the cell and 256 MB of XDR RAM. God, that's revolutionary.
7 Bluetooth controllers possible!?
Wi-Fi included standard!? (vs. an add-on)
The list goes on...
Wow! That's some hardware to work with.
Even Microsoft's magic bullet "the HD era" is swallowed by the PS3. Indeed, while 360 gives you 1080i, PS3 gives you 1080p! That's amazingly better.
From a game standpoint, it could be pure BS and both sides. Yes, on both sides.
Sony's demos could all be pre-rendered stuff.
The same goes for Microsoft's demos.
We won't know anything about games until they ship on released hardware.
Sony's demos show more graphics capacity, though.
Microsoft seems to be content with a plethora of franchises, sequels and other derivative titles. That's not very exciting.
Jerrybean @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Can someone point me to where Sony made the claim that any of those videos were gameplay footage? I must have missed it. In watching the various videos, the only claim I heard Sony make was that those videos were being rendered in real time.
75 seconds into t_sony_335_press_gt.mov as available from http://www.gametrailers.com/ it is said:
"And, uh, just to be clear though, this is all running live, in real time, on RenderWare, on the PS3."
To be a touch pedantic for a moment (and digress), of course all those videos were 100% CGI. CGI does stand for Computer Generated Image, after all, and the PS3, well, it's a computer. Actually, that they were all CGI is part of what makes them so amazing. Some of the videos downright push the boundaries of reality. Take the Mobile Suit Gundam video. I laughed while watching it, it so looked like a low budget film made with scale models on a set. It was afterward that I realized "Oh shoot, that was CGI, not film." As funny as it looked, I believed it for a moment. That impressed me.
However, I think what is trying to be said here is they were not rendered in real time, that they were pre-rendered. With regard to that, I have to agree with Bleep's (#4) final conclusion: Remain objective. To me this means, without supporting evidence, give little or no weight to any claims, be it from Sony or, and especially so, baseless ones made in forums like this. ^__^
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
"Microsoft seems to be content with a plethora of franchises, sequels and other derivative titles. That's not very exciting."
What do you call Devil May Cry 8, Gran Turismo 12, War Killer 1023, Tekken 8, the list goes on?
P.S. For all we know, MS's GPU could also be more than 300 million transistors, and faster than 550 MHz...
Think about it, consoles are meant to be cost EFFICIENT. How is 7 bluetooth controllers efficient? Its important to remember, that you are paying for these features. Why hasnt Sony talked about the price of this console? Maybe because slot loading DVD drives, 1080p support, Blu-ray support, 2 HDMI ports, etc etc mean this system will cost at least 500$...
Sassanix @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I will still pay for that... it cost less then my suepr pc.
bil @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I don't own neither of PS2/XBOX. And this thread is I
think a thread to compare graphics performance between PS3/Xbox360.
#22.
Talking about CPU, Cell is twice as powerful as Xbox's Power5 Core.
And as on GPU, RSX is twice as powerful as Xbox's GPU.
Cell has a newly designed CPU core which can also execute PowerPC commands.
Both Cell and RSX are going to be fabed in factories where Sony/Toshiba
put billions into. How come you end up with PS3 and XBOX260 are equal?
Yesterday, Sony and EA did realtime demonstration in front of reporters
which MS has never done. I know Sony tend to hype. But PS3 will obviously
do better than XBOX360 even if PS3 performs 50% of what Sony claims.
What I can't believe is MS is likely to be hyping in worse level.
Lpj8 @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I really don't know which console has more processing power and muscle. I don't fully comprehend the teraflops. The magazines and online sources that I've read seem to suggest that the PS3 will be superior to the XBOX 360 from a technological standpoint. Its like bizzaro world. All the fanboys will argue the same points that the opposition argued when the PS2 and Xbox were in their prime.
The question remains, will the proposed power gap between the PS3 and the XBOX 360 be about the same as was seen in the PS2 and the XBOX? I believe that this will likely be the case and if so, I think that both systems will coexist with no problems. The way I see it, if the Xbox 360 has some games that are awesome, I'll probably end up getting it. If the PS3 kicks out some great games, I'll probably end up getting it. Heck, if the Revolution puts out some great games, I'll end up getting it. Its kind of like what happend during the current generation of systems. All three systems did relatively well, and two of the systems did very well.
Jerrybean @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
As a PlayStation fanboy, I'll respond to JBob250.
More is better. Okay, fine by me. I take comfort in the cell's 7 SPEs. However, where you get that there is no parallel processing in the RSX (the PS3's GPU), I don't know. The specs say "Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines". Yeah, more is better. Wonder how you missed that.
Speaking of lies, lies, and more lies... I'll say no more.
As for comparing the hardware, all that is known about the PS3 is the hardware. Sure, games are important, but how exactly am I supposed to compare them if little or nothing is know about them yet. Maybe that just sliped your mind.
Going back to that fanboy statement. You see, a true fanboy (or fangirl, don't want to leave anyone out) doesn't just look at things from one angle. No, a true fanboy only sees what he wants to see. It's not that the fanboy only looks from one angle, but that he must not see anythink but what he wants to believe. Oh, wait. Here I'm trying to be insightful, but I'm just preaching to the choir, arn't I.
Monmin @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Disclaimer: I'm an xbox fan.
I think Sony or whoever makes the killzone game should come forward and explain what it is we saw. I watched the video of the presentation, and when they played the clip I was floored. At the time believed that was the power of the PS3. I think everyone in the crowd thought the same thing (based on the awed applause the clip generated).
If it turns out this was just a pre-rendered movie then I will feel that I was mislead by the Sony presentation. My $30 DVD player can play a pre-rendered movie just as well (except not at that resolution).
Eric P @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Killzone looked amazing...I enjoyed watching it.
I think it's funny we are living in an era where we have to figure out what is FMV/CGI and what is real time. We assume the hardware is so advanced, that it can actually render cinematic quality in real time....the reality is, we are still a long ways off from getting the PIXAR like animation produced in real time. Do you people realized how long it takes to render ONE frame of a PIXAR level computer animation? I am not going to babble off an uneducated answer, and I am too lazy to look it up right now, but last I read, it takes a nice little very expensive computer several hours. 29 frames per second...you do the math. Of course, this several hour time is much reduced each generation...so I guess we can all be dazzled by numbers that sound great, but don't really mean jack squat because we have no idea what they'll do for us (except make pretty charts). I DON'T BELIVE SONY's numbers for one second. I really stopped listening after they showed a chart comparing supercomputers and had the Earth Simulator (a japanese owned machine) to IBM's BlueGene/L. They showed the Earth Sim at 35.9 Teraflops, then had BlueGene/L at only 36 TFlops. Of course, the CORRECT number for BlueGene/L is 135.3 TFLOPS - set to double in the near future. I guess a little national JAPANESE pride kicked in when they made that little chart (no one badly beats our precious Earth Simulator!).
So while SOUNDING impressive, we actually have no idea what all those blingin numbers mean. I was growing tired of Sony constantly comparing their paper PS3 to the Xbox360 - it's too reactionary, and they betrayed their simple goal of trying to out spec Microsoft. I enjoyed MS's conference MORE, because they talked more about how they are going to deliver a better experience to the gamer - they never once talked about the PS3, or how it was going to be better. I guess they might have if they had the specs in hand, and maybe Microsoft will release some white-paper comparing technologies in the near future (where they will twist giga-flops around to make their system look better). It all means a load of nothing when you throw the disclaimers in ("specs may change at any time").
Epic's Mark Rein said it best:
"We're going to be able to kick serious ass on PS3, and so are a lot of our licensees and other 3rd party developers, in a way that wasn't remotely possible on past consoles.
I should add that we're in a similar position for XBOX360. It's also made up of parts we're intimately familiar with.
My point is that developers are going to be able to get SO MUCH MORE power out of these consoles than they ever could in the past and so much closer to the raw power of the components."
Mark claims the only real time stuff was the Unreal Engine demo (which looked awesome, but much more believable than Killzone) and the EA stuff. Fight night did look good indeed, and I think we'll see the same level of detail with the 360.
Sony, when they release the PS3, SHOULD absolutely have a technically superior platform. It's coming out 6 months after the X360! Whether or not that matters in the end is obviously impossible to speculate. MS is showing their committment to the experience, and branching out to more Genres of gamers. Sony is committed to technology and horsepower, and the fine art of chart whoring.
Jon @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
PS3 is now the big ugly bohemeth that is larger than even the original Xbox!
PS3 will not be in the US for 1 year!
PS3 will launch competing with Nintendo!
PS3 will launch competing with Halo 3 and God only knows what other crazy games will be out by then...not to Mention Gears of War a 360 exclusive.
PS3 has no announced plan for an answer to XBOX Live service!
PS3 has an absolutely rediculous controller design and they refuse to fix the awkward positioning of the joystiqs! Xbox 360 controller is much better controller.
PS3 will not launch worldwide at the same time and will be even further behind than one year in European market when it releases.
Just to put things into perspective folks...The Xbox 360 will be playable tommorrow at E3. Everyone, including myself will see first hand actual games running in realtime on the Xbox 360. The PS3 will not be playable by anyone for almost another year! PS3 will probably release in Japan around this time next year! PS3 out Probably by Christmas 2006 in the US and after Christmas in Europe.
Your all not keeping things in perspective. The graphics GPU's of both systems are almost identical in power. The PS3 will have more CPU power, but the difference in speed will probably not be seen for years to come. It takes years for Developers to squeeze the juice out of a system and if you haven't noticed, there will be allot of squeezing to be done to stress such robust systems as these two. It is clear that the XBOX 360 has enough juice in it to run anything that will run on the PS3 for several years to come without any issues whatsoever. The two systems are equally capable. It's like comparing two PC systems, one has latest ATI graphics card and a AMD64 3.2 GHz. The other computer has latest Nvidia and 4.2 Ghz. Any PC gamer would know that the difference in any given game would be 0!!!! While the 4.2 Ghz CPU is faster, the 3.2 Ghz CPU is soo fast that no accertainable difference would be seen in the same games running on each system. The only difference might be 10 frames per second, which when your running at over 60 frames per second already is completely irrelevant.
SO yes everyone understand that PS3 will have a faster CPU, but this single fact alone is insuficient to raise the bar of the PS3 to being a more capable machine. The XBOX 360 is equally as capable of running anything developers can throw at either system for years to come. In reality and practicality, What we have hear folks is nearly a level playing field in terms of technical specs and capabilities. So the truth is, the creativity and shock and awe will be in the hands of developers now. God Bless Them All.
PS3 is now the big ugly bohemeth that is larger than even the original Xbox!
PS3 will not be in the US for 1 year!
PS3 will launch competing with Nintendo!
PS3 will launch competing with Halo 3 and God only knows what other crazy games will be out by then...not to Mention Gears of War a 360 exclusive.
PS3 has no announced plan for an answer to XBOX Live service!
PS3 has an absolutely rediculous controller design and they refuse to fix the awkward positioning of the joystiqs! Xbox 360 controller is much better controller.
PS3 will not launch worldwide at the same time and will be even further behind than one year in European market when it releases.
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#30
My point was: Did Microsoft show 1 game that was not a sequel?
I don't think so. Not even one.
Maybe you could count Kameo as that one, but Kameo surely sounds like a remake of Sudeki to me.
So, yes, Sony's platform will get many franchises, sequels and other derivative titles. They are not going to prevent publishers from selling games on their platform, right?
The point is that Sony ALSO showed some new concepts, new games, new gameplay opportunities. (the demo with the goblets comes to mind in terms of new gameplay opportunities)
Microsoft said their GPU is clocked at 500MHz.
ATI said it includes around 200 million transistors. So, there is no tie here.
Efficient...Bluetooth is very efficient...both in terms of power consumption and range...
It is also friendly to other wireless protocols and does not cause interferences.
Microsoft said nothing about the technology used by their wireless controllers, which makes me think they will use regular RF channels, probably at 2.4GHz. Now, it is known these RF channels can conflict with your wireless network and your cordless phones. Not very efficient, is it?
Finally, if the 360 had all the bells and whistles of the PS3, Xbox fans would brag all day long about how these differences are essential and fundamental.
Unfortunately, Xbox fans find themselves on the other side of the fence. Apparently, they are going to have a very hard time accepting they do not cheer for the most powerful machine.
For me, I have disposable income. I can buy both consoles and play the best games each have to offer.
I don't mind if Microsoft decided to supply "consumers", the MTV generation and the masses at large.
To each their own, I am a hard-core gamer and Sony's message hit it home with me, while the "Yo, bro!" mumbo jumbo used by Microsoft's used car salesmen convinced me I don't belong to the market segment they are targeting.
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#33:
"Talking about CPU, Cell is twice as powerful as Xbox's Power5 Core. And as on GPU, RSX is twice as powerful as Xbox's GPU. Cell has a newly designed CPU core which can also execute PowerPC commands. Both Cell and RSX are going to be fabed in factories where Sony/Toshiba
put billions into. How come you end up with PS3 and XBOX260 are equal?"
You're misled. The Cell processor is 2x as fast as the 360s processor at _floating point operations_ only. It is 3x as slow for general purpose computing (3x3.2 vs 1x3.2 - note the SPEs are vector units, only.)
"Cell has a newly designed CPU core which can also execute PowerPC commands."
Umm no? Its a Power based processor. It "not only executes PowerPC commands", it IS a PowerPC core, it natively executes the instruction set. In fact, seeing as both the 360 and the PS3 use an IBM processor, we can conclude that they both use the exact same core (3.2 ghz + Altivec VMX 128) with the exception that the 360 has 3 of them, whereas the PS3 has 1 but complements it with 7 SPEs.
How do I compare the GPUs? Simple, we dont have enough information from Microsoft about their GPU, so we cannot conclude that that Sony's is faster. The only information you have to base that on is Sony's misinformation about their total system performance, which is based on an estimate for what will be available next spring. Does anyone realistically think Sony has a 2 Teraflop PS3 lying around? Trust me if they did, it would be on store shelves. The only thing Sony has right now are prototypes and far fetched estimations.
Again, I must repeat, wait for the games. Everything else is meaningless fluff. We have literally no reason to suspect the PS3 and 360 will not be virtually identical in power.
:)
Ron Krock @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
The legitimacy of the previews presented by both companies, has (thus far) left much to opinion. Both are wielding the almighty pre-rendered video - we won't have a good grasp of how they operate until tomorrow when gamers will begin interacting with each (and oh imagine what REVOLUTION might be like oops feel like). After tomorrow, we should have a better understanding of what is hype and what is real.
I contend that Microsoft has completely revolutionized their marketing campaign and console initiative. They seem to be the only company, plainly said, with their shit together. They understand the concept of 21st century "connectivity." Video games have ceased to be brainchildren of the developers - creativity will be the ultimate driving force in this new era of intuitive media. The consumer demands exploration, collaboration, and information. The digital age has developed an intricate social atmosphere unleashing the true democratization of creativity. This re-equilibration of market-influence (much to the chagrin of the Microsoft's of this world) is fueling the next generation. Xbox 360, while perhaps lacking superior graphics, has established a communal exchange with a highly customizable experience in mind.
The "experience" is what initially drew me to the console. The 360 is no longer a "game" (as Nintendo would have it - 'cause they're too fucking lazy to put up, or shut up), but rather a low-cost media hub. Individuals' ability to communicate, share content, experience new ideas, and tinker with old ones is not a novel concept, nor a difficult one. This is simply bold. I (a Mac user) tip my hate to Microsoft and force a smile for Bill. Theyve made something quite admirable.
As far as design goes... Xbox's "organic" look is simple, bold, and sophisticated all at once. I hated the design on first perusal; however, now I've come to love it. Reloading Engadget in my Computer Science class today to see a boomerang-shaped controller had me announce something to the effect of: "Sony is shipping a two-ended dildo with the PS3" (if that doesn't sum it up, God help us all).
Jon @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
I repeat...XBOX 360 is playable Wed. - Friday at E3. I will be there on Thursday thank God! That speaks volumes. I will know with my own eyes, ears and hands what XBOX 360 is capable of tommorrow. Will have to wait and see on PS3.
What is Sony doing about playing online? Xbox Live has garnered nearly 2 Million subscribers for XBOX that will all probably be very loyal customers as there is no equal in online play either in the console world or the PC.
SONY Must tell us what their online plan is and they must execute. PS2 absolutely failed us on many promises in this reguard.
All gamers should be happy that the PS2 will no longer be the least common denominator for developers that has kept the gaming industry back for far too long now. All platforms and PC will see a dramatic improvement in games now that these new consoles are arriving.
Knoton @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Ok, all of the Ps3 TECH demos were in real time, this incluede the ue3 demo, the getaway demo, and the fight night demo. The TRAILERS are more or less optimistic ideas of what the PS3 COULD do. But games always look better later in a console's life cycle. So we might see that quality in say 2010, but certainly not in 2006. Although on paper it seems that PS3 = gamer, Xbox360 = Non gamer. However this might change if we see some online offerings from SONY
mretienne @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
what i dont understand is why any of these companies show off pre-rendered stuff at all in a demonstration of new HARDWARE?? the whole point is to see what the systems can do, not what pretty video they can play! i understand that they probably do it because they need something to show, but it creates a lot of needless controversy. they should be limited to only showing in-game footage because if that ps3 stuff is all pre-rendered and most of the xbox stuff was not, it gives sony a false unfair advantage.
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#37 - couldn't have said it better :)
#38 - What are you talking about? Microsoft is releasing a ton of new games/IP/concepts... perhaps you missed:
Kameo,
Gears of War,
Lost Odyssey
Blue Dragon
Alan Wake
Full Auto
The Outfit
Ninety-Nine Nights
And plenty more that also happen to be on PS3 as well.
A couple more things that are worth noting:
1) Isn't it funny that all developers (lets not be prejudice here) seem to claim that next gen systems 'finally have the power to realize their ideas' ?? I think we've heard this before.. perhaps.. last generation? Hmm strange - just goes to show you that the hype machine is in full motion in some camps.
2) Its SOOOO important to note that Microsoft is showing REAL interactive and playable demos on the E3 floor. Sony isn't expected to show anything that isn't on a giant screen and looping repetitively...
3) If you were in Sony's position, facing a year+ before launch, but stiff competition now, what would you do? You certainly wouldn't have final hardware yet, so you would try to estimate what the final result would look like. Would you underestimate? Doubtful. The moral of this story is, don't trust anything until its in your living room.
From the posts on this board I can tell that most people have wised up, and are onto this game. I've smelled this shit before and it was potent.
Remember the Emotion Engine apparently rendered Toy Story in realtime, and it too was labelled a Super Computer (by who you ask? Well, his name begins with Ken Kutaragi of Sony Computer Entertainment).
The end result is, we don't need to worry about the hardware. The games will look the same, play the same, feel the same, on both systems. Luckily each system is taking a very different direction in terms of online, so there will be a clear differentiator.
vakerorokero @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
remember the "EMOTION ENGINE"? I thught that has going to revolutionize the console gaming but nothing happened... Of course, we got nice sequels but looking back at the past years the only original Masterpieces or "musthaves" were grand theft auto,metal gear solids, ICO & katamari damaci and the gran turismos, which were different kinds of games that actually offered something new,but they can run on any of the other systems. the only thing good about the ps2 is that is the one with the most sequels, which mean nothing improved (onimusha?). Now I bought a XBOX1 and while looking at reviews for which games to get, I found about 10 games which are great but most suck big time. Only Tecmo's games. Segas line (which all of them are great not masterpieces.) and Microsoft big budgeted games are nice. Even that is more powerful than the other consoles meant nothing apart from flame wars.
That leaves Nintendo to fill my gaming, even if it doesn't offer anything new for long periods of time. Once in a while they create something excellent (pikmin, warioware, animal crossing) which everyone tags as childish because it doesn't feature any BMXs or Strippers or Rice customizeng while running over people like any american developed game and Namco's SRS. Original games are a thing of the past, as everyone is focused on sequels, and not just any sequel, the more violent and offensive the game can be the more its going to sell like XXX BMX, Grand Theft auto (which is original and excellent, but not its sequels) and that Conker Shit that started as a joke on Nintendo and now is one of Microsoft big budget games.
Power means nothing as the last generation proved.
Original Masterpieces and crappy sequels are the ones that define a console.
Big budget doesn't mean it will be a game to get.
People don't like change that's why games like katamari damaci, parappa the rapper, Ico, Pikmin, the sims, warioware don't sell so well at launch just after people start talking about these games and the experience with them is that the become "GAME OF THE YEAR".
P.D.: is that offroad racing game for the PS3 actual gameplay? or just a movie? that looks nice...
CB4D @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
Comments like #41, #40, #37, etc. have given me renewed faith in the intelligence of gamers. I am impressed with the ability of most members of this board to see through the massive hype machine that is Sony. I truly applaud you all. Thank you and good night :)
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#40
Microsoft's abstract and fuzzy talking smells like BS to me. I don't know why, I can't relate to what they are trying to say. They make it sound like it's deep philosophy or religion, but I think it's just vapor.
Sony has to come with an online system that works.
Sure, it's expensive to set up, but it's very easy to do. Let's see how well they go about it.
Dralt @ Dec 18th 2005 8:45PM
#45
Sure, and Microsoft is well known to tell the truth, play fair and produce quality software.
You must already be dreaming.