"CELL offer twice the processing power of X360"

[macrosslover]

i've said it before and i'lll say it again, i think they'll both be basically the same, with a slight nod going to either system in certain categories. aside from that, i highly doubt we'll notice the kind of differences that were apparent between the ps2 and xbox games of this generation. that said, i'll probalby end up getting a xbox360 eventually cause joanna dark is that much of a lure for me and based on what price the ps3 comes out at and what the exclusivity of FF games besides 11 are, i'll probalby end up getting a 3 as well.

[Mateus-ES]

Simply declaration of video game market leader hurt the fanboys hearts..

[RootWind]

I don't see the PS3 or Xbox360 being much of a difference performance-wise in the end.

After all, Nintendo seems to be content.

[Xtreme $niper]

I don't see the PS3 or Xbox360 being much of a difference performance-wise in the end. 

After all, Nintendo seems to be content.

586629398[/snapback]

Nintendo is content because they are not playing the graphical war. And they are still the most profitable video game company, even in third place. They know what they are doing.

[Dale]

and 8$ a month is a high price...anyway sony has invested bilions on it to bo only twice fast over the 360's...and as for x360 MS didnt pute any money on their G5 apple developed for them :p , and i think sony has got too much in that hardware power fight :pinch:

586628205[/snapback]

its too high for me. I'm one of those casual online gamers.. I may online game 4 hours every month when I have the time. But I am a strict Single Player or Multiplayer (1-4 player).

For me $8/month is a insult and slap in the face because I have no use for online gaming in my world and for the little bit of time its just not really worth it.

I remember a time when online games were free. wait. they already are. Microsofts games arn't free online though.

If Microsoft feels online games are not profitable, they shouldn't have online games because I pay for Internet Connection then I pay for the console then I pay for the game. I don't intend to pay for a online gaming service that i occasionally use.

When it comes to next generation games. I will free my mind of the system, and focus on the games. I want a 360. I want a PS3 and I want a revolution, But in all honesty I won't be able to afford that.. let alone another $8/month fee.

and I'm tired of sony Talking and putting down everything else. - and the coke CEO is speaking blasphemy :laugh:

[Laughing-Man]

Nintendo is content because they are not playing the graphical war. And they are still the most profitable video game company, even in third place. They know what they are doing.

586629518[/snapback]

They are built to outlast the competition till the others bleed themselves to death fighting over a small portion of the potential market. Edited October 6, 2005 by jmole

[OrangeSoul]

Graphics wise Xbox 360 will be keep on matching until end of next year PC Cards while PS3 graphics will get old even before it launches in US.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Just marketing BS, the CELL might be more powerful (not twice as much though), but if developers cant harness the power, the games wont take advantage of the most power it offers

on the other hand, the 360 is easy to program for, so dev's will be able to make it do more than the PS3 (until the PS3 devs catch up)

and 8$ a month is a high price...anyway sony has invested bilions on it to bo only twice fast over the 360's...and as for x360 MS didnt pute any money on their G5 apple developed for them :p , and i think sony has got too much in that hardware power fight :pinch:

586628205[/snapback]

if you are going to take part in this discussion, get your facts right (dont mean to sound rude btw)

IBM developed the CELL CPU (with Sony and Toshiba), they also developed the PowerPC chips in the Xbox 360, Apple do not develop the PowerPC chips (they are not the sole customer only aswell, or hold a trademark over the PowerPC name, and the 360 does not use G5's)

[yankee lion]

Graphics wise Xbox 360 will be keep on matching until end of next year PC Cards while PS3 graphics will get old even before it launches in US.

586629744[/snapback]

As we can see with the current 360 games. :rolleyes:

And 360 is easier to code for which means better graphics in the beginning of it's life than the PS3 if they are equal. I don't see it. MGS4 gogogogo.

[thebigl3bowski]

Opinion:

I believe the xbox (Microsoft) realized that an earlier launch and a larger game database was extremely profitable. Even though it was clear that the XBOX's specs were superior to the PS2, PS2 sales continued to do extremely well even through the 2004-2005 season. People liked the large selection of games for PS2 and with the exception of Halo Microsoft wasn't throwing out anything really unique.

I prefer XBOX 360 because I like a lot of the features. I am a big fan of Media Center capability, and I like Live play. But I think that gameplay on both systems will be comparable.

[DrunkenMaster]

They are built to outlast the competition till the others bleed themselves to death fighting over a small portion of the potential market.

586629695[/snapback]

I keep thinking if Nintendo hasn't already gotten ahead of all the competitors buy releasing a less heavy weight console then Sony and MS.

Consider: some/most of the GC games will work on Revolution. Big plus. Then the console price and likely games will be much less, console prob 50%. Big plus for most *parents* who buy the consoles and games.

But I think this is the kicker: when Sony and MS are weighing out on killing each other and Nintendo looks to be out of the picture, they could launch another console which is backwards compatibe with GC and Revolution they could make an even newer console (w/in 2 years) which is faster and cheaper than Xbox and PS3. And they can pull in addtional market from Xbox or PS3 gamers who want a second "cheaper" console.

They could instantly leap from 3rd to 1st or 2nd place in one move. Risky. Put I wouldn't put it past Nintendo to strategise like this. They're as smart as I am. ;)

[jerry]

As we can see with the current 360 games.  :rolleyes:

586629790[/snapback]

Half assed games (read Tony Hawk) do not indicate the console's power. Imagine EA could very well port their crappy games to PS3, does that indicate PS3 to be very slow? Didnt think so. :happy:

[SnowRanger13]

As far as I know FLOPS is a pretty good way to test CPU processing power. MHz and GHz mean next to nothing now especially with multi-core CPU's like the 360's and PS3's. According to the specs

Xbox 360: 1 TFLOPS

PS3: 2.1 TFLOPS

The Cell microprocessor really sets the PS3 apart... Offering twice the processing power of Xbox 360.

All Sony CEO said was Cell offers 2x processing power as 360. Or at least as the specs say. But it all depends how programmers take advantage of that power and theirs other things that will effect that performance. Truly I think all three will have a good run.

[icecaveman]

As far as I know FLOPS is a pretty good way to test CPU processing power. MHz and GHz mean next to nothing now especially with multi-core CPU's like the 360's and PS3's. According to the specs

Xbox 360: 1 TFLOPS

PS3: 2.1 TFLOPS

All Sony CEO said was Cell offers 2x processing power as 360. Or at least as the specs say. But it all depends how programmers take advantage of that power and theirs other things that will effect that performance. Truly I think all three will have a good run.

586629927[/snapback]

Dude PS2 had way more FLOPS than the original Xbox, it doesn't tell a BEEP about how games will perform

[SnowRanger13]

Dude PS2 had way more FLOPS than the original Xbox, it doesn't tell a BEEP about how games will perform

586629944[/snapback]

I know that. I'm just saying that on the specs yeah the PS3 CPU is 2x as powerful. But I know PS3 will be a lot harder to code for and probably won't be using its full power anytime soon. Everyone shouldn?t worry about specs right now. Both PS3 and Xbox 360 will show a lot more power then last gen. Everyone knows Xbox is better then ps2, better graphics, built in hard drive (hate memory cards), their controller cable thing so you wouldn't pull on console (don?t know name...)

But personally I'm a Final Fantasy fan and also really enjoy Socom II online and a bunch of other ps2 games. I own Xbox and ps2 but if I had to pick one it would still be ps2. Games make or break the system... look at dreamcast...

[Epimetheus]

In my opinion, I'd say that sony has a huge advantage simply because its' release date is timely enough/far behind the x360. time enough to analyze the competition and accelerate on all levels needed to land ontop. sony will remain top-dog over microsoft in the console wars.

that said, its kinda scary at the same time being it's a totally different strategy being used by sony. sony usually always releases first and blasts off with great games on release. leaving competition with less attention on their rls dates. Though, i think it's a strategy thats going to keep them ontop.

I own both and xbox and ps2. if i have to choose, it would have to be the ps2 for many reasons but simply for the wide selection of great games.

586628210[/snapback]

I have a PS2, and I have yet to see a great game come out in the past five years that is worth buying. I always hear this expression "The PS2 has the largest variety of great games!" yet I don't see them, beyond GTA and MGS and FF, there really are no great games. In the two years that I have owned the PS2, I have only bought six PS2 games. Mostly because all I see is crap coming out constantly that won't provide a solid playing experiance.

[Laughing-Man]

I have a PS2, and I have yet to see a great game come out in the past five years that is worth buying. I always hear this expression "The PS2 has the largest variety of great games!" yet I don't see them, beyond GTA and MGS and FF, there really are no great  games. In the two years that I have owned the PS2, I have only bought six PS2 games. Mostly because all I see is crap coming out constantly that won't provide a solid playing experiance.

586630311[/snapback]

Variety of gameplay, solid playing experience...Just glancing over at my collection on my shelf, the first four come to mind:

Edited October 6, 2005 by jmole

[Flash]

Katamari Damacy is one awesome and addictive game for the ps2, not to mention that it is totally original

[Kamuii]

I have a PS2, and I have yet to see a great game come out in the past five years that is worth buying. I always hear this expression "The PS2 has the largest variety of great games!" yet I don't see them, beyond GTA and MGS and FF, there really are no great  games. In the two years that I have owned the PS2, I have only bought six PS2 games. Mostly because all I see is crap coming out constantly that won't provide a solid playing experiance.

586630311[/snapback]

Katamari Damacy

God of War

ICO

Shadow of the Colossus

The Shin Megami Tensei games

Front Mission (4 and soon 5)

Soul Calibur 3

Zone of the Enders

If I was genuinely pushed I could come up with probably 10-20 more truly good, PS2 exclusive titles but I'm feeling way lazy right now.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Um..That is a fact ps3 will be better in most catergories and it can be proved.

Edit: I mean Hardware catergories btw.

586628041[/snapback]

Huh?

The Xbox 360 has a vastly more useful CPU.

The Xbox 360 has a vastly more powerful GPU.

The Xbox 360 has a more flexible memory achitecture.

There's really no argument... The X360 is the superior hardware platform.

But where it really kicks butt is software. Sony doesn't know software. But Microsoft does. The X360 is a god send for game developers.

[sanctified Veteran]

And Coca-Cola CEO says Coca-Cola taste twice as good as Pepsi. :rolleyes:

586627693[/snapback]

Thats true

:)

[Candy Dimsum]

Huh?

The Xbox 360 has a vastly more useful CPU.

The Xbox 360 has a vastly more powerful GPU.

The Xbox 360 has a more flexible memory achitecture.

There's really no argument... The X360 is the superior hardware platform.

But where it really kicks butt is software.  Sony doesn't know software.  But Microsoft does.  The X360 is a god send for game developers.

586630646[/snapback]

Well you know what I getting tired trying talk about my opinions thats why I dont post alot but anyway as soon as the ps3 comes out we will be able to compare and yeah :laugh: I can't wait.

[Gfunk4life]

i wasnt going to say anything untill coke is better then Pepsi, WTF are you smoking, pepsi is way better then coke.

no one talks stuff about pepsi.

PS sony is full of it

[x-byte]

And here it goes again....

It doesn't matter people! It's about the games, not the hardware. Games will not look much different on each console just because its more powerfull.

[Beastage]

Well you know what I getting tired trying talk about my opinions thats why I dont post alot but anyway as soon as the ps3 comes out we will be able to compare and yeah  :laugh: I can't wait.

586630674[/snapback]

Actually it will take another year after PS3 is released before you can really compare with the dev learning curve and all that :crazy: