Do you trust Microsoft's Xbox 360/PS3 comparison?

Fanboys....I admire the dedication but fail to see the value in getting all heated in a debate over who's box is better.

I myself have been reading tons of articles and watching footage/trailers for each consoles titles.

I gotta say that I will end up getting a XBOX360...and then I will get friggin PS3 too.

Why?

I love the games and thats what its all about. Some people like dumping cash into other hobbies, mine is gaming.

Wow, listen to all the babies. I own both now (xbox & ps2) and will probably own both in the future, but I've never seen so many dumbasses saying they're only going to buy one or the other or arguing about which one is better. GET A LIFE, I don't know and don't care what a teraflop is or any of the other specs. If its got good games and cool features thats enough for me wether its ps3 or x360.

Until you get into car, then, and only then, will
you know how it actually handles. Slick marketing, sales talk and statics are for those dreaming somewhere in lala land. Wake up to the experience of the REAL world. ;)

You guys are so full of SONY it's Pathetic. SONY has been called out by many gamers on their showing at E3 and you people still believe the hype. Today it was reported that Nvidia's R50 chip was not used last week at E3 during SONY's presentation. However, you people said nothing about the GREAT SONY hype. Why do you people love SONY sooooooo much when all they do is lie as they did with the PS2? Microsoft at least had the guts to show their games in development on thier ALPHA chips for people to play. Sony had a showing to their guess via a movie. Humm, I felt like I was at the movie theater looking at Star Wars. Be Happy for MS for being an American company thats trying to bring something developed here back home.

You guys are so full of SONY it's Pathetic. SONY has been called out by many gamers on their showing at E3 and you people still believe the hype. Today it was reported that Nvidia's R50 chip was not used last week at E3 during SONY's presentation. However, you people said nothing about the GREAT SONY hype. Why do you people love SONY sooooooo much when all they do is lie as they did with the PS2? Microsoft at least had the guts to show their games in development on thier ALPHA chips for people to play. Sony had a showing to their guess via a movie. Humm, I felt like I was at the movie theater looking at Star Wars. Be Happy for MS for being an American company thats trying to bring something developed here back home.

What people keep forgetting is that the Cell processor does not solely belong to Sony. It also belongs to Toshiba and IBM. Yes, the IBM that also designed the Xenon chip for Microsoft. The three spent a lot of time trying to design a new architecture more powerful than what is/was available at the time for networking and multimedia. If it was as simple as slapping three cores on a customized G5 to achieve something on par or greater than what they were already working on, don't you think IBM would've?

Sorry Microsoft, the Cell is a more powerful chip compared to the Xenon. However, with such a different architecture, I'd be very surprised if they could harness its full potential at launch. Perhaps down the road.

Microsoft can make up the difference in other hardware components, such as the GPU or bus. But they might as well just drop the Cell approach.

Either way, I'll be getting all three systems, but probably only the Revolution (another IBM chip) at launch.

As far as some of the games also coming out on PC, I've personally given up on PC gaming, so a 360 is nice for the few non-crossplatform games that may come out. Right now, the only game I want for the 360 is Gears of War, which would delay my purchase of their system until more titles I want come out.

I've defended Microsoft's less than stellar graphics in previous articles' comments, stating that the games were still under development, remembering how Halo fared at E3 the first time. With that said, I'll also defend not only Sony but Nintendo's lack of showing by stating the obvious. The Xbox 360 is further along in development, launching at least six months ahead of the competition. I do not blame Sony or Nintendo in the least for not showing something playable on the show floor for their respective next gen systems.

While they have yet to announce anything concrete, I'd expect Sony and Nintendo releasing more information later this year, either at SpaceWorld 2005 (Nintendo's event) or at the Tokyo Game Show 2005 (Japan's version of E3). Why wouldn't they? They'd be further along in development. Japan is their home court. And its closer to the Xbox 360 launch, giving them another opportunity to disrupt 360 sales - at least in Japan.

Funny how after the XBox 360 conference everyone was dogging it and talking about how it didn't look good. How PS3 was kicking it's butt based on performance. 24 Hours later the same dolts (bloggers and online news sources) were praising the 360 and talking about evolutionary cpu design (pretty much an x86-64 mixed with PowerPC). I really have to hand it to Microsoft (not it's engineers but it's PR agents) on the fastest turn around of Public Perception. The last time I saw something this fastest on a disaster of a showing was when the Republicans where boasting about Bush's 1st debate minutes after Kerry's kicked his ass. It was like Einstein vs a chimp.

"Today it was reported that Nvidia's R50 chip was not used last week at E3 during SONY's presentation."

WTF so that Unreal demo wasn't even running on the full hardware? Holy Christ this thing is going to be unbelievable!

oh man! and remember the doc ock one!

sweet lord, wake me up next year.

- Gears of War

OK, maybe...another Quake

- Ghost Recon 3

Boring...playing that several times already...

- Perfect Dark Zero

A sequel but could be good...

- Quake 4

Yeah...why not Quake 44...who wants to play this gameplay again!?

- Call of Duty 2

Call of Duty was good and long enough. I don't want to play more of it.
Give me some new gameplay.

- Elderscrolls IV: Oblivion

Hopefully, this will be good...I hope they won't stick to the Morrowing recipe...

- Dead or Alive 4

Boringgggggggg...how many times do they think I am going to buy the same game!?

- Full Auto

Nothing new there...a rail shooter on wheels...boring.

- Kameo

Could be good...let's see if the third rewrite was the charm.

Yeah, pretty weak line-up...

Sony's is barely better by the way.

I think the video game bubble is gonna burst.

What a load of crap. A truly powerful console does not need to rely on a load of comparative specs, especially when the way in which both systems run in completly different - it's like comparing an F15 to a Ferrari. Tech Specs are important, but more importantly is the Games we can play on them. Content is King and always has been - only time will tell.

If Nintendo gets through this generation of gaming, they will be fine

What will the others do - improve graphics + better hardware - minor improvements?

Nintendo Revolution will be powerful, but more importantly it will use a new type of image mapping to create better than pre-rendered backgrounds which will look very nice. This will help the developers, easier and will keep the graphics the same as Sony and Microsoft

Nintendo always has power, don't worry, its just not the main focus - Nintendo is worried that the others will imitate them rather than innovate

I don't blame Nintendo, wireless, multiplayer, rumble feature, analog control, shoulder buttons etc. - all stolen. Revolution will be small because it will use a new type of system, sucking air out, doesn't need a cooling sink or anything like that.

Be patient and let the Revolution come

in my opinion , this thread is so biased . it is basically an ( xbox team member ) who posted this stuff . i don't think that anyone should take these numbers for real . not pointing toward sony's or nintendo's supermacy too . but if one would rely on true stats and figures about any of these three console , i suggest that the source should be free from all these companies .
when two or more persons fight each other , and at the verdict , the judege will rely on jury members , and witnesses .
it's the same case here . read what Pro people from outside the ( Sony,MS,Nintendo ) circle wrote about each system alone .
sites like:
www.cnet.com
www.gamespot.com
and many more ....

one thing too .. xbox fanatics . you tried to pull a joke of Ken Kutaragi holding a PS3 console in his arms .. i got one advice for you :
((( take a better lesson in photoshop learning ))) !!

Okay, let's put this absurd level of controversy surrounding Killzone and Sony's "lies" to rest. I'm going to try to cut through the favorite pre-renders, and remind people of what they may have forgot. Let's go one by one through what Sony showed us on a box that isn't even "final hardware" (the MS fanboy's own saving grace).

1. Luna Pixel Shader Demo - I believe this is real-time. I've heard nothing to the contrary. And this alone looks better than anything I've ever seen done in real-time.

2. Unreal Engine 3 Demo - Real-time. Absurdly beautiful. It speaks for itself, but there are some interesting Tim Sweeney quotes: "Shaders that are more than 200 times more complex than was possible in the previous generation" "All of the effects that you have seen in previous generation movies are now being done in real-time" "We got the first PlayStation 3 hardware only 2 months ago"
Let me guess, Tim is lying for Sony?

3. "Lots of Ducks" Demo - Real-time. Very impressive to anyone who understands the kind of processing power required.

3b. Eye-Toy Duck Demo - Real-time. The things this guy does with two neon cylinders and a current-gen Eye-Toy is jaw dropping (you can hear it in the audience). I've never seen water seperated like that in real-time.

4. Leaves Vortex Demo - Real-time. Hundreds of Thousands of leaves. 5.1 Surround Sound. Every leaf has it's OWN audio channel.

5. Blow-It-Up Demo - Real-time. Uses only the Cell processor. "Renders volumetrically all of the performance required to simulate an explosion, thermo-dynamics, heat, gas, smoke, fire." And this is for a game in development.

6. Alfred Molina Demo - Real-time. Breathtaking. I showed this to a friend and he said "So what? The PlayStation 3 can play DVDs..." not realizing what was happening.

7. Satellite + LIDAR Landscape Demo - Obviously a video, but claimed to be real-time using only the Cell.

8. SOE Fantasy Landscape Demo - Another pre-recorded real-time. Impressive, even with a grain of salt.

9. The Getaway Demo - Pre-recorded but believably real-time.

10 Spider-Man + Gran Turismo Demo - Not sure exactly what's going on here, but the combination is seamless.

11. 12 Simlutaneous Channel HD Decoding/1000 Decoded Media Thumbnails

12. Fight Night Demo - Real-time. You all know it and love it.

13. Final Fantasy VII Tech Demo - I assume this is scripted real-time, otherwise it's just the FFVII intro with a super nice looking Cloud at the end.

14. Video of developers praising the PlayStation 3.

After this is where the drama begins. It's not really clear if any of the game demos are real-time, or just pre-rendered.

So let's assume Sony is "lying." After all, they're not Microsoft. Let's just say all the Sony developed games (The F-1 Game, Vision Gran Turismo, Killzone and some of the games from the second segment) are just CGI.

What about the demos from the other developers?

Are Square-Enix, Electronic Arts, Capcom, Ban Dai, Namco, RockStar, Insomniac, Sega, and UbiSoft lying to us too? Trying to over-hype Sony's system?

The key difference between the hype of the PlayStation 3 vs. the PlayStation 2 is the large showing and support from third party developers. So they're all taking a risk if they're bloating it's capabilities.

Due to this, I think such a level of cynicism based around what has been shown is unrealistic and desperate.

And even with just the REAL tech demos I outlined earlier, anybody with sense would leave their conference impressed. I can't understand this hyper-focusing on a couple of demos, simply because they look too good to be true. I think everything shown was too good to be true.

So anyway, let's just see what happens.

Hey, how 'bout giving Joystiq a break, huh? Didn't you guys see the headline? "Do you trust Microsoft’s Xbox 360/PS3 comparison?". I mean, come on! Joystiq is just doing us a service by posting news from around the web. Its not his job to check for 100% validity, biasedness, political correctness, gender fairness, color-fastness, or resistance to spilled coke! Its a BLOG for crying out loud! If you can't stand the heat, stay outta the kitchen!
Ok, with that out of the way. I still think that PS3 will win out in the end. 360 may have an initial happy hour, but ultimately the japanese behemoth will likely prevail! Why? Well, brand presence, marketing muscle, massive experience in the electronic field, oh and a KICK-ASS system which will wipe the floor with all the other guys combined! :)

I'll stick with my pc and in the end, after all the MS and Sony fans kill eachother off, it will just be us pc gamers, nintendo fans, and cockroaches.

Oh man, most of these posts are hillarious! This has to be the funniest group of people I've ever seen. #28 seems to make the most sense around here after the first few comments.

Instead of posting about the actual topic, everybody's posting about how "Sony's better than MS" and how "MS is going to kill Sony", or how Joystiq has lost all credibility because they're "not talking about the games".

Last I remember Joystiq was about videogaming, and consoles are a part of that. On top of THAT, Joystiq isn't really advertising for any side. When Sony let loose with their "XBox 1.5" comment there was a lot of skepticism in the posts, and this post happen to question "Do you trust MS Xbox/PS3 comparison?", not "MS is better than PS3" comparison.

Quit your bitching allready.

I can't trust this comparison honestly. I feel this way because someone from the XBox 360 team did the comparison. As of this point it is too biased in my eyes to see as credible.

to #51 who said "Microsoft at least had the guts to show their games in development on thier ALPHA chips for people to play."

...aka macintosh G5s hidden under the kiosks.

don't you see? ALL of this is hype, both sides, until the hardware is real, finished and in consumers' hands.

Microsoft is a piece of trash. They lied and then they flopped.

Major Nelson appears to be a viral marketing campaign on the part of Microsoft.

This particular bit of strategy follows the lead of the current President's team, namely that they blatantly lie and repeat the lie until it is commonly heard that it is considered true.

In this strategy, every possible positive design aspect of PS3 is denigrated or minimized through the use of carefully chosen alternative terminology or comparisons with older technology. For example, referring to the SPEs as "DSPs" or "vector units" and presuming in the comparison that the RSX is barely better than the 6800.

To take another tact, why does the Xbox360 have "VMX-128" in it? What do they think game developers are going to do with all that double-precision? The GPU doesn't traffic in doubles.

For those wishing for a more mature discussion check out http://arstechnica.com as they also have a solid rundown on the 360 and the cell in the articles section followed by interesting discussions. In general it seems both platforms are very much next generation and a discussion of who is more next generation is redundant at this early stage of the game. The Xbox 1.5 comment by Sony is clearly ill-founded considering that when the Xbox was released it was already surpassed by PC technology of the time; yet most estimates I have read put the 360 CPU perhaps as many as 3 years ahead of current PC technology and the ATI GPU at least 1 year ahead of current PC tech. The CPU discussion at the above site clearly shows the 360 is a very different machine to the Xbox, and similar in some ways to the Cell.

I don't beleive any of this I think that is bais because the microsoft engineer made it and i think that we all know it is a lie. Ps3 is more powerful.

"The majority of game code is a mixture of integer, floating-point, and vector math"

Wow. I feel stupid.

Xbox360 will suck compared to PS3.

1.PS3 looks better.
2.Fully backwards compatible.(13,000+)games.
3.Latest technology.
4.Twice the power.
5.Better games.
6.Better graphics.
7.Better online gameplay.
8.Easy to develop for.

There is just no comparison PS3 all the way.

PLAYSTATION WILL RULE YET AGAIN!!!

XBOX SUCKS!!!!!!

nonsenses from MS's employee.everyone knows ps3 has better and more powerful specs than xbox 360 has.i really can not believe it,that MS has backslided.you see xbox used to be more powerful than ps2,but now MS is actually making their next-generation game console less powerful than sony's one.WHAT THE HELL are MS doing.i used to be an xbox fan,i want to play halo 3,but seeing xbox360 is like a piece of junk compared to ps3,i really lost,i don't know which one i should buy.

I don't like Microsoft.

But I am afraid this time the 360 will do a lot of damage to SONY.

2 reasons: XBOX LIVE and holiday release.

My personal favorite next-gen console: Nintendo Revolution.

Pesonally I think out of all the systems coming soon the 360 will rain supirior to the rest. The only challange I see from sony is its cappability to play blu-ray (Which is only good for HDTV).

Do I trust the MS comparison. Not completely. What's wrong with it? It comes from an MS employee who worked on XBox 360 and clearly has skewed some of the numbers in favor for the XBox 360. That said, let's look at why this was done. This seems very much like a rebuttal in a debate of whos got the better machine. My take on it is that if SONY have the odacity to bad mouth the XBOX 360 and make theoretical claims, so does MS. So let's just sit and watch the fun and collect any useful info in the fallout.

Technically, every live (not prerendered) demo shown at the PS3 press conference can be achieved on the XBox 360 as well. So does that make the 360 as good a machine. Not necessarily. My opinion is that both machines are somewhere in the same ballpark in overall performance with each one having it's edge over the other in separate ways.

PS3 has got 7 SPUs with more FPU power and 256k of L2 to play around with for each one of these. Of course these complement the CPU with the 512KB L2. Thats kick ass raw computing power. Now is this configuration really good for out of order execution and branching? Not really!! If you consider the round robin sort of way the memory is shared between the CPU and the SPUs, there is a cost to sharing data across these SPU units and CPU. On the other hand, consider the task of creating geometry on the fly from some vertex streams. This can be used for some cool terrain genration, LOD scheme or surface geometry like fur, etc. As long as the SPU does not need a lot of fetches from the main memory pool, the PS3 can do some incredible stuff with its SPU for these sort of problems. The beauty of this is that this does not just stop with the geometry. This applies to uniform floating point intensive calculations done on data streams. These are vertex processing, video and audio processing, codecs, procedural texture generation, etc.

Let's take the XBox 360. We don't have 7 SPUs but what we have is 3 CPUs capable of hyperthreading. Potentially 6 hardware threads running at the same time. The beauty of this is that all these share a common 1 MB of L2 cache and that this 1 MB of L2 cache can be segmented into parts dedicated for each of the threads. Each of the 3 (not 6 though) CPUs support the Altivec instructions. These instructions allow each CPU to be comparable to an SPU for floating point like calculations. So one can sort of argue that the XBox has 3 SPU like units with each unit having around 333KB of L2 (1MB/3). However, that means that you wont be using the CPU at all. So realistically let's keep 1 CPU free and dedicate the other 2 to SPU like functions giving them 256KB each from the 1MB L2. This basically makes the XBox 360 look like 1 CPU (hyperthreaded though) with 512 KB L2 + 2 SPUs. Compare this to the PS3 where you have 1 CPU (non hyperthreaded though) with 512KB L2 but 7 similar SPUs. The Xbox is 5 SPUs short!! But wait, the XBox 360 does have it's 48 shader pipes in the GPU along with the tesselator/Geometry Shader. Basically for the same task of geometry generation, the XBox has 2 SPUs + some parts of it's GPU. I'm not sure if nVidia's RSX has a tesselator/Geometry shader. In other words, I have my doubts as to whether the RSX can be used for this task. Regardless considering the SPUs can do a lot of this, the RSX does not need to. So basically this is more like an Apples to Oranges comparison here. Cancelling out the CPU + 2 SPUs, its 5 SPUs vs the ATI tesselator/Geometry Shader + upto 48 shader pipes. I'm sure the PS3 wins here way ahead. Besides, the XBox GPU can only do geometry and not any of the other media streaming features the PS3 can.

This whole comparsion above was about one particular kind of task. Let's consider other tasks like AI, where you are processing huge decision trees. In a 3D game, there are lot's of floating point computations in these trees done for collsion detection, position comparison, distance, etc. What some may find surprising is that these compuations are possibly 1/10th of all the computations. The rest consists mostly of fixed point, logic flow and branching instructions. In AI, there are decisions based on decisions based on decisions.... and it goes on. Even something as floating point intensive as collisions has a majority of logic and branching instructions compared to floating point instructions. With games growing bigger, the quanity of AI units are drastically increasing and with that the number of interactions between them grows exponentially. In order to do these inter-AI unit collisions/interactions we need a lot of these accessible at the same time. What that amounts to is basically having as much of this data readily available in the L2 cache minimizing cache misses. So you need a good sized L2 memory and CPU capable of excellent branch prediction and out of order execution. This is where the Xbox 360 trounces the PS3 hands down. PS3 has 1 non hyperthreaded CPU with 512 KB of L2 cache. XBox 360 has 3 hyperthreaded CPUs with a common 1 MB L2 cache. So XBox could have upto 6 threads processing their AI trees (icky implementing it, but very doable) with enough data sitting in L2 that can be accessed by all the threads. Compare to PS3 where the CPU does not support Altivec instructions. Clear win for the XBox here I would say. Now you could argue that it is possible for someone to create a super cool scheme where the AI trees floating point computations are handled by the SPUs and then the CPU goes through with the decision evaluation. It is not possible to do that because it has several disadvantages; it is sub-optimal considering you will more likely end up processing more floating point computations than required (as opposed to conditionally choosing which ones to compute), this will be one nightmare of a coding exercise if you want to synchronize all the SPUs and _be_ optimal enough to gain advantage with regards to data transfer between SPUs and CPU. Basically it will be a royan pain to do it and after all the pain, the gains will hardly justify the pains.

So, if you have had the patience to read this far, you would have enough sense to see that there is _some_ (not much though) truth to the MS rebuttal claim.

My opinion. SONY put a lot of numbers out there and went on to directly and indirectly bash the XBox 360. MS then came out with a rebuttal with their version. Basically seems like a yelling and bash your opponent match. Both sides have some truth and a lot of BS. If we are observant enough, we can weed out the BS and go home with some factual information (or maybe not).

Regardless, the sad part about the comparisons above is that we are looking at specific problems. i.e. it is very subjective. Overall, both systems have CPU(s) running at 3.2 GHz with 512 MB RAM. This is the 50000 feet view. They therefore will yield around the same amount of power, but using different configurations and schemes. It is hard to code game engines that take advantage of multiple threads, but it is something that is POSSIBLE. Usually engines that do that are built for not 1 but multiple games and multiple platforms. With that sort of engine abstraction, the consoles begin to look very similar in terms of power to the game developer. So we will end up seeing similar games on both systems.

Who is the winner? Both and us!!
Of course, it's all about the games. Both sides will have around an equal number of exclusives. Apart from that every game that will be made will be tuned so that they function on both systems. Game developers are going to be reluctant about going in and putting in a _lot_ of extra work to have the game take advantage of particular hardware. If that was the case, we would have seen a clear difference between XBox and PS2 games in general. However, despite being more powerful, XBox had the same games as the PS2 that looked and played no different. Don't count the exclusives. There are very few exceptions to this in the current generation

PS3 v Xbox 360(Specs Compared)


CPU:

PS3 - Cell Processor PowerPC-base Core @ 3.2GHz.
7 SPE @ 3.2Ghz each.
1 VMX vector unit per core.
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs.
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE.
512kb L2 Cache.
1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy.

Xbox 360 - 3 Power PC Cores @ 3.2Ghz each.
1MB L2 Cache.


Memory:

PS3 - 256MB 3.2Ghz XDR RAM(Main) & 256MB GDDR3 700MHz(Video).

Xbox 360 - 512MB GDDR3 RAM 700 Mhz DDR(Shared).


Graphics:

PS3 - Custom NVidia Card @ 550Mhz.

Xbox 360 - Custom ATI Card @ 500Mhz.


Storage:

PS3 - HDD Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1(capacity TBA).
Memory Stickstandard,Duo,PRO x 1.
SD standard/mini x 1.
CompactFlash(Type I,II) x 1.

Xbox 360 - Rmovable Hard-Drive(20GB).


Game Controllers:

PS3 - Wireless Bluetooth(up to 7).

Xbox 360 - Wireless(up to 4).


Display:

PS3 - 480i,480p,720p,1080i,1080p.

Xbox 360 - 480i,480p,720p,1080i.


Network:

PS3 - 1000mbit Ethernet. Wi-Fi. Bluetooth 2.0.

Xbox 360 - 100mbit Ethernet. Wi-Fi.


Audio:

PS3 - 5.1 Digital.

Xbox 360 - 5.1 Digital.


Backward compatiable:

PS3 - Fully PS1,PS2(13,000+ Games).

Xbox 360 - Not Fully(Top Games Only,And They Have To Be Recompiled To work)


Disc Media:

PS3 - CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW, SACD, Blu-Ray.

Xbox 360 - CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW.


System Floating Point Performance(CPU & GPU):

PS3 - 2 Teraflops.

Xbox 360 - 1 Teraflops.


Release Date:

PS3 - Spring 2006

Xbox 360 - November/December 2005


Which Is The Better System?:

PS3 - Without A Doubt.

If Sony couldn’t deliver on performance, I bet they wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it (only to be disproved later)

You mean like with the PS2?

PS3 is actually 1.8 TF, not 2!

The gpu is 1.8 TF but the system performence is 2.18 TF.

PlayStation 3



CPU

Cell Processor
PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
1 VMX vector unit per core
512KB L2 cache
7 x SPE @3.2GHz
7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU

RSX @550MHz
1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound

Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell- base processing)

Memory

256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth

Main RAM 25.6GB/s
VRAM 22.4GB/s
RSX 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB< 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

System Floating Point Performance

2 TFLOPS

ok for all the people who say that the ps3 has more power are all loser's. xbox had more power than the ps2 and look what happened. everyone thinks that sony is the greatest thing in the world. in my opion i think sony sucks. sony will never beat xbox unless bill gates says so. ms is twice the size of sony. and the last time i heard bill gates had $43 billion dollars. that was a few years ago. so for all the people who say that ps3 will kill x360 your just making it harder on yourselfs. like what you like who gives a shit what can do what and which is better. if you like sony good for you. if you like ms good for you. if you like nintendo good for you. if you never played an xbox than don't bash it. same with the ps2. it's not that fair because you didn't give it a chance. if you played both than thats a different story. i played the ps2 and i don't see what is so great about it. so the ps3 can play ps1 and ps2 games. why get a ps3 that can play some of the best looking games and care if it can play some of the worst looking games. why spend the money on that. i like the xbox a lot and i don't see my opion changing any time soon. i'm for one not getting just to play xbox 1 games on it. and another thing every sony fan rants about that sony has a lot more games. this is true i'm not gonna lie. but most of the games suck. sony in my eyes is just putting every game that they can put out just to makes themselves seem more better. the only reason why most people think sony is so great is becasue it's a name brand. i work at best buy and i have seen people come in and want to buy something that is a sony. and i tell them that sony is good buy your mostly paying for the name. yes they are both money hungry but what company isn't. so for all of those people who never played a ps2 or an xbox you can't bash either one. until you played it than say what ever shit you want to say. and yes a lot of games for xbox are on the pc and ps2. but people go crazy for gta and say thats the reason why they bought a ps2. gta is also on xobx so you need to find a new and better reason. i've played ps2 and i've played xbox. i'm an xbox fan forever. i think xbox is better in every way. and from the people that have played both that i know say the same thing. better online play, and better games. so again xbox is the better one in my eyes.

No game will ever need the amount of power put in either system.
So i'm getting the system with better games.



Xbox360.

I agree. According too almost all experts(Like E3... etc) when judgin between Xbox 360 Vs. Ps3 they all say:
Ps3 will be more powerful
X360 Will have better games.

(Note: 8 of the top 10 games coming out for next gen-consoles were X360 Only)

wow, first i have to say thanks to all you guys and gals for posting, have read all of them and enjoy the insight. for me it's eazy to say which will be best, but first let me go back to the late 80's early 90's when nintendo and sega were fighting for world dominance. i was a nintendo fanboy needless to say, and my best friend in the world was a damb sega lover. there were many times that we would exchange blows, and even more times that i wanted to choke the air from his lungs because he offended my love of nes. however, i am glad i never did kill the rat basterd. speeking of that it would be great to see kutragi san and mr. gates or j. allard and kaz hirai in a k1/ufc style fighting match. that would realy make my year. and by the way i would put my money on sony, i like their odds.

nintendo vs. sega no clear winner. then 94 came along and brought sony along for the ride. by that time i was fresh in my teenage years and had lost most if not all intrest in playing video games. besides, by that time i found something infinatly more fun to play with. i don't know if you've guessed,..but.. yea....i found my dick. and pussy by that matter was much more fun to play with than any game.

it took 97 and final fantasy to bring me back, ohh.my..god i was blown away, i hadn't seen anything or played anything like this before, i was in love all over again, and the world became a good place.

so to put things short, i love sony for bringing me back to gaming. i also own an xbox and a nintendo game cube, but i don't love them as much as my playstation and soon to be ps3 as well.

i will own my ps3 at launch, and maybe (highly iffy)the other 2 in a few years.

peace out.....

I think the analysis is closer than many would like to believe. It's general consensous that the RSX will be a 24 pipe chip slightly faster than a 7800GTX...which, as you can see does indeed slightly pass ahead of two 6800s.

So, PS3 = GPU fucked...I mean really, what good is Cell if it has to make up for your inability to produce visuals?

I think the analysis is closer than many would like to believe. It's general consensous that the RSX will be a 24 pipe chip slightly faster than a 7800GTX...which, as you can see does indeed slightly pass ahead of two 6800s.

So, PS3 = GPU screwed...I mean really, what good is Cell if it has to make up for your inability to produce visuals?

First I would just like to say that Nintendo is the worst thing ever. I wish I could be more clourfull with my words when regarding Nintendo but in general they have the game sense of a retarded chimp at the age o 2 and the origionality of a boy band.

But coming back to Xbox 360 I generaly think those statistics are not made up, but instead bring out the stronger points of xbox 360 in comparison to PS3. I like both Sony and Microsofts products but you cant go slagging off microsoft for publishing statistics when hearing about ps3 because Sony did just the same to Microsoft.How can Sony know all the hardware statics of xbox360 back at E3?

Sony heard some of Microsofts specs and found the better points of ps3 to compare them against. Sony didnt mention the fact tha Microsofts graphics card has more pipelines. Why is that?

I work in sales and I know the tricks they pull. I think both consoles are equal in power when added up, at most the ps3 would only be slightly more powerfull, not twice as powerfull as they claim it to be.

I just want everyone to think back to Sony's other press conference's and remember their level of deseption e.g. ps2 and its emotion engine and the fact that history is repeating it self with Killzone 2 being CGI.

As most of the people in blogs all over the net are saying, the performance of a console is important to an extent. It must be good enough to bring the most important asset to a game console to life, the games. FACE IT, what really matters is the games. What do you get when you a have great expensive console with no games? A status symbol. I am not biased, just interested in what will suit me. My conclusion is that both consoles are excellent works of art bred to great what they were designed to. It happens every time now though, before the console/games come out all officials seem to be able to battle each other with is absolutely absurd accusations and completely over the top false technical specifications. In terms of graphics though I see the 2006 generation of consoles being a milestone yet I think that soon we will come to a stop in terms of realistic interactive video stimulation. In Laymen's terms, we are soon going to come to stop in how "real," we can get in graphical terms. Im more than certain this will not happen for some time, but Im also sure I will live to see the day.