Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 26, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 26, 2008 360: More general-purpose CPU power, easier for developers to take advantage of. Lots of CPU power for AI and non-graphic tasks. Specific design considerations for procedural geometry, cooperation between CPU and GPU. Significantly more advanced GPU. Large, flexible amounts of memory bandwidth. Architected to remove common bottlenecks, like framebuffer memory bandwidth. Built for HD output, HDR, high-color depth rendering, and Anti-Aliasing. Built for high-res textures, lots of bump mapping, and lots of screen effects. Familiar development style for most developers, especially those targetting 720p. Except unlike the PC, they don't have to worry about bandwidth constraints related to AA, filtering, HDR, etc. System-specific programming model can provide advanced functionality (tiling for very fast 1080p rendering, procedurally generated content, etc) Lots of automatic load-balancing, great library and tool support. Lets developers focus on gameplay, content, etc. PS3: Lots of raw computational capacity Small amount of general-purpose CPU power (1/3 of Xenon CPU in the Xbox) Lots of targetted CPU power for specific tasks in the SPE "cells" SPE capabilities largely redundant with GPU capabilities, very poorly architected for cooperation between the two. Several crippling bottlenecks in system architecture (mainly, memory pipelines). Segregated memory reduces flexibility for developers. Built for video decoding/encoding, stream-computing sort of tasks with fixed datasets. Built for large amounts of geometry. In theory, could also provide fluid animation although so far that doesn't seem to be working out. Unusual, very system-specific programming model needed to make use of most hardware. Bottlenecks make it difficult for even simple games to run with consistent performance unless a lot of time is invested in tailoring it to the PS3's unbalanced, inflexible architecture. Developers spend far more time working on hardware-specific optimizations to eek out small gains, with the hope of reaching performance parity with normal code on the 360. Basically, the PS3 has lots of theoretical power, but is poorly architected for gaming. This is the result of several decisions on Sony's part. Deciding that throwing more horsepower at the problem is all they needed to do. Like building a Bugatti Veyron with its 1000 HP, but giving it the suspension, drivetrain, and tires from a Ford Focus. Just isn't going to work. In the end it won't really drive much faster than a Ford Focus. Original PS3 design didn't include a GPU, used two Cells. Because of price and late fears that the programming model would be impossible, this was changed. But too late to re-work the rest of the architecture. Sony didn't have the best graphics or AI last time around, so they didn't see this as important to winning anyway. PS3 design makes a fantastic BluRay player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 26, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted January 26, 2008 (edited) Come on m8, it doesn't matter which way you look at it, if developers take full advantage of both consoles the 360 would produce better results as far as gaming goes, as Emn1ty said, both consoles have more than enough CPU power, especially for HD gaming, the bottleneck on both console is the GPU and the 360's is a fair amount more powerful than the PS3's. You can go on about the potential of each console all day long, but the fact remains that the 360's GPU has allot more to offer than the PS3's. I'm just not going to agree, sorry. I am a little naive in the sense I don't know hardware inside out, but what I do know, is the logic behind how console software progresses over the span of each generation. Have your die hard views, but I'll just sit it out patiently till each console is in it's limelight years, and in regards to the PS3, games like FF13/GoW3 & ICO 3 have come out - And even their predecesors - FF14 may hit PS3, ect. Games do the talking, a console may be powerful, but it's up to the developers to squeeze everything out of it - Good looking games don't just drop out of the sky due to hardware, they require skilled programmers/coders/ect as well - That's why I'd like to see who maximizes what they have the most. You can build a ?2,000 PC, and then sit twiddling your thumbs for a year or two till games come out that actuallyfully> take advantage of your pc. Consoles IMO work fairly similarly, in the sense they to, take a good few years till the console hardware/software results peak. Also I think while there are pros/cons to each consoles hardware this generation, it is in NO WAY like it was with PS2/Xbox - Multiplatform titles like we see this generation (even with their minor/major differences in certain cases) would never of been possible last generation - The Xbox in terms of power had a clear leap over the PS2 in all categories I believe. Things are much moreeven> from the outset this time, and that's why I think it's a bit adventurous to run about stabbing "facts" this early about which console will produce the definitively best looking titles. Next gen started on the first 360 sale. Im not talking next gen for each console, but next gen for the world. The firs next gen console was out. The PS3 is behind in more than just time. Even though it hasn't been in developers hands as long, the 360 will be replaced before the PS3 has a chance to really show itself and shine. Thats a very bad situation. Its not that I want MS to win, I love competition, but the PS3 is too far behind. I am glad that games are starting to come out, but there are already games out for the 360, alot of games worth buying. And? I don't care what console came out first, or what console argubaly has more graphicaly impressive stuff rightnow>, all I care about is each console hitting it's maximum output - Eg thebest> it can do, which tends to be hit, in the last few years of the consoles life. When both consoles have hit their peak, ill be able to look back at all the games I own an be happy(Y)) At this point we'll be seeing the best of the best. ps. Please note im talking about the games from the technical side of things (graphics/physics/AI/ect), I know a game that comes out in 2006 with inferior graphics to one in 2009, might still pip it on gameplay. Edited January 26, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 26, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 26, 2008 I don't care what console came out first, or what console argubaly has more graphicaly impressive stuff right now, all I care about is each console hitting it's maximum output - Eg the best it can do, which tends to be hit, in the last few years of the consoles life.When both consoles have hit their peak, ill be able to look back at all the games I own an be happy (Y) At this point we'll be seeing the best of the best. If that's the case - why buy a new console at all? Why not wait for those "maximum output" games to come? Further, if I'm going to pay the launch or first-couple-years price for a console, why would I want to pick the one that might have the best games someday as opposed to the one that has the best games I can play right now. I'd rather buy the console with the best games today, then if another one has some killer games a few years later - it'll probably be dirt cheap anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix XII Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 No good RPGs for the 360? Have you been living under a rock??? 2 words, Mass Effect.The 360 has the ability to produce better graphics, due to it's superior GPU and more graphics memory available. The ps3 has the ability to process more things like advanced physics due to the Cell processor. I think that's pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnzoFX Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Techinically, the ps3's cpu is more powerful. Techinically, the 360's gpu is better. But I doubt that Technically, in either console's life, we'll see games that use 100% Of the CPU + 100% of GPU Technical/Potential Power. So I think when this gen wraps up, we'll see games that look pretty much the same graphically. I hope that makes sense. Personally, I think having more stuff going on on-screen (like a lot of physics) more immersive. Probably due to that either of these console's gpu can handle HD gaming, hell my old pc graphics card ran some multi-platform games better (pc + 360), and that thing is over a year older. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyLarry Veteran Posted January 26, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 26, 2008 Let me list a few recent Games - Call Of Duty 4 Burnout Paradise Devil May Cry 4 (Demo) One would be hard pressed to really see any major differences between the two consoles with the above games, especially while playing them (what i mean is sure, screenshots may show a slight edge between one or the other). So you guys keep going back and forth all you want, arguing tech specs I still do not quite understand, nor do I care to understand. As far as I am now concerned, the proof is now in the pudding, both consoles are capable, and both will provide a great experience when developers put some TLC into making their game. These arguments are really for the hardcore people who care about things like operations, cycles, pipes, etc., etc (since I do not care about them myself, I am sure some of those terms are wrong perhaps). For the people not concerned with specs and concerned with just playing games, which I include myself in that bunch, as I just stated, either console is/has proved itself more than capable. Just my .02 cents. I just do not get why people insist on continuing to quote the equivalent of power point slides with tech specs, when they can go out and play the games for themselves and see the difference, which as of late, is becoming more and more minimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted January 26, 2008 MVC Share Posted January 26, 2008 i agree 100% with DL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadean Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I'll agree with DL, too. Who cares when there are slight differences between the two? I made my choice based on the games available. (I chose the PS3) If I chose a different console based on specs where does that lead me in the end? With a bunch of titles I have no interest in? bah, sounds like a bad move! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 26, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted January 26, 2008 (edited) If that's the case - why buy a new console at all? Why not wait for those "maximum output" games to come?Further, if I'm going to pay the launch or first-couple-years price for a console, why would I want to pick the one that might have the best games someday as opposed to the one that has the best games I can play right now. I'd rather buy the console with the best games today, then if another one has some killer games a few years later - it'll probably be dirt cheap anyway. So I can play games on it. As I said earlier a game from 2006 could have better gameplay than a game from 2009 - Only thing being weaker is the graphics. Just because I enjoy the limelight period the best, doesn't mean I can't enjoy the build up to getting there. Plus the consoles this generation offer much more than just games - Multimedia functions/remote play/ect. I'm not saying don't pick the console that has the best games right now, my argument was that of how can anyone know 100% what the future will bring in terms of graphical advances? As both consoles seem to be very even this generation, I just find it hard pushed right now to say which one will put out that game, that graphically makes everyone go "woaaah you won't see that on another console!" - Or the game a neutral 3rd party company genuinely proves they couldn't do multiplatform or something (I say neutral 3rd party, as we all know 1st parties rage on about how exclusive game x couldn't be done on another system). Hell, add to the pot the fact that might not even happen this generation - We might all get to the PS4, Xbox 3 and go hey, both of them are that evenly matched, there isn't a clear winner (again in terms of graphics/physics/AI/ect) - There will obviously be a winner in terms of raw sales figures. This is nothing like the previous generation where the graphical gap between the PS2 and Xbox was rather large. So my opinion is that of to wait and see what happens over the next few years, as I genuinely think it's too hard to call right now.... or in general terms I think your guess would be 90% speculation 10% fact. Instead of say for example last generation if someone said the xbox games will look better than the PS2 games, thats more like 10% speculation, 90% fact, as there was such a large hardware jump. (and before anyone jumps on me, im not saying the PS2 games looked bad in comparison to the xbox, a lot of them were amazing, it's just the xbox could handle AA, better textures ect on the whole due it having more raw power) Edited January 26, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIE Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 So I can play games on it. As I said earlier a game from 2006 could have better gameplay than a game from 2009 - Only thing being weaker is the graphics.Just because I enjoy the limelight period the best, doesn't mean I can't enjoy the build up to getting there. Plus the consoles this generation offer much more than just games - Multimedia functions/remote play/ect. I'm not saying don't pick the console that has the best games right now, my argument was that of how can anyone know 100% what the future will bring in terms of graphical advances? As both consoles seem to be very even this generation, I just find it hard pushed right now to say which one will put out that game, that graphically makes everyone go "woaaah you won't see that on another console!" - Or the game a neutral 3rd party company genuinely proves they couldn't do multiplatform or something (I say neutral 3rd party, as we all know 1st parties rage on about how exclusive game x couldn't be done on another system). Hell, add to the pot the fact that might not even happen this generation - We might all get to the PS4, Xbox 3 and go hey, both of them are that evenly matched, there isn't a clear winner (again in terms of graphics/physics/AI/ect) - There will obviously be a winner in terms of raw sales figures. This is nothing like the previous generation where the graphical gap between the PS2 and Xbox was rather large. So my opinion is that of to wait and see what happens over the next few years, as I genuinely think it's too hard to call right now.... or in general terms I think your guess would be 90% speculation 10% fact. Instead of say for example last generation if someone said the xbox games will look better than the PS2 games, thats more like 10% speculation, 90% fact, as there was such a large hardware jump. (and before anyone jumps on me, im not saying the PS2 games looked bad in comparison to the xbox, a lot of them were amazing, it's just the xbox could handle AA, better textures ect on the whole due it having more raw power) This thread wasn't about what future development will bring, it was about the hardware, it's not 90% speculation, 10% fact, more like 90% fact 10% speculation. Did you just ignore the links Anaron provided comparing the hardware of both consoles? You can find many articles like those from people who know what there talking about, which all state the 360 is better suited for gaming, and as stated again and again, the 360's GPU is a damn site better than the PS3's, cell can't compete when it comes to the general purpose processing power the 360's cpu has, as far as gaming goes the only thing the PS3 could do better is physics, because the cell is good at number crunching, but even physics are let down by it's somewhat weak GPU, thats not going to change. I don't care which console is better, I sold my elite because it was just gathering dust, I plan of getting a PS3 purely as a Bluray player, but how, or why somebody would just blatantly refuse to accept facts is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted January 27, 2008 This thread wasn't about what future development will bring, it was about the hardware, it's not 90% speculation, 10% fact, more like 90% fact 10% speculation. Did you just ignore the links Anaron provided comparing the hardware of both consoles? You can find many articles like those from people who know what there talking about, which all state the 360 is better suited for gaming, and as stated again and again, the 360's GPU is a damn site better than the PS3's, cell can't compete when it comes to the general purpose processing power the 360's cpu has, as far as gaming goes the only thing the PS3 could do better is physics, because the cell is good at number crunching, but even physics are let down by it's somewhat weak GPU, thats not going to change. I don't care which console is better, I sold my elite because it was just gathering dust, I plan of getting a PS3 purely as a Bluray player, but how, or why somebody would just blatantly refuse to accept facts is beyond me. I know the specifications aren't speculation. What is speculation to me is what console will provide the "fanciest" game(s) overall, if any of them - As I stated earlier we might end the generation with the majority agreeing graphically both can do similar things, and no specific game is really leaps and boundaries over another. When it comes to multiplatform both are very equal, so it's down to the 1st parties to squeeze every bit out of each console and see what they can come up with, and I think that's going to take some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 27, 2008 i agree 100% with DL... I don't. When I played COD4 at the store on a PS3 is ran like crap, stuttering all over the place particularly whenever something exploded / moved quickly. The 360 version has no such issues. It's one thing to say they look the same, but they certainly don't run the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyLarry Veteran Posted January 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 27, 2008 I don't. When I played COD4 at the store on a PS3 is ran like crap, stuttering all over the place particularly whenever something exploded / moved quickly. The 360 version has no such issues.It's one thing to say they look the same, but they certainly don't run the same. You can disagree with me all you want, but please let me try and understand this. You are basing your experience playing COD4 on the PS3 on a store model, and nothing else?? I own both versions, 360 and PS3, and there are no such slow downs anywhere. Absolutely none. Did you ever stop and think perhaps there was an issue with the floor model you were playing?? Also strangely enough, I never read one review of the PS3 version where it claims it runs like crap and there was stuttering all over the place. In fact I am pretty sure how I read IW made sure they got a constant 60fps on both consoles, and were actually praised by the gaming community overall for doing so. So it's one thing to say a game runs like crap and stutters all over the place when you own the console and own the game. Its a whole other thing to say it does based on playing the game on a floor model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 27, 2008 I don't see much point in owning both, and obviously the 360 version was my choice given the impressions I'd had of the PS3 version and the fact that I'd like to play online (with people I actually know), with achievements, at 1080p, and with a comfortable controller. The in-store experience wasn't the only time I saw COD4 perform slowly on a PS3. I have only two friends who also own PS3s, and the one who doesn't also have a 360 bought the PS3 version of COD4 and I saw the same thing on his system, although I just watched and didn't play it myself. It's not really bad like some other games, and maybe wouldn't be as noticeable if I wasn't used to how fluid it looks on the 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keito Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I don't see much point in owning both, and obviously the 360 version was my choice given the impressions I'd had of the PS3 version and the fact that I'd like to play online (with people I actually know), with achievements, at 1080p, and with a comfortable controller.The in-store experience wasn't the only time I saw COD4 perform slowly on a PS3. I have only two friends who also own PS3s, and the one who doesn't also have a 360 bought the PS3 version of COD4 and I saw the same thing on his system, although I just watched and didn't play it myself. It's not really bad like some other games, and maybe wouldn't be as noticeable if I wasn't used to how fluid it looks on the 360. Sorry dude but that's just bullcrap - I've played through it on both systems and did some fair amount of online gaming on both as well and while there might be a small difference it surely isn't as bad as you're describing. I'd say your view is just skewed. Besides, your only argument concerning COD4 that makes sense is that you want to play it with friends, the rest is matter of preference.Next to that - agreeing with DirtyLarry - why are people so obsessed with which console has the best hardware and think they can predict which games look the best based upon that? For all we know the Wii is the most successful one which clearly has the worst hardware of all three competitors. I just hate how for some people it comes down to raw numbers and it isn't about the fun games anymore, it's a shame there's so much hatred between people rooting for different consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 We are talking about hardware, not game potential. The hardware does say something about game potential though. The 360 has the highest potential simply because it is a more rounded system with well balanced power, where the PS3 lacks GPU power and the Wii lacks CPU power and RAM (its GPU actually isn't all that bad if I remember correctly, at least in PC terms). The person who threw this conversation into a full argument on game potential was Audio with his comments on how hardware doesn't tell you anything about future games, and that over time the obstacles will be overcome. While I don't doubt that, the 360 has less obstacles and more power, which means it will hit its peak faster than the PS3, even if it didn't have a head start. The PS3 is just too darn complicated and too underpowered in other areas that just make the CPU worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomnut Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Brandon Live, I agree with that list for each console you put there except one thing, built for anti aliasing? The 360 can't do that to save it's life, the jaggies in every game is awful, much worse than the PS3. I still prefer to game on the 360 however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIE Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Brandon Live, I agree with that list for each console you put there except one thing, built for anti aliasing? The 360 can't do that to save it's life, the jaggies in every game is awful, much worse than the PS3. I still prefer to game on the 360 however. I doubt that very much considering the 360's edram which is able to provide "free" AA, with no performance hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashman Veteran Posted January 27, 2008 Veteran Share Posted January 27, 2008 I can't believe people (ok, 1 person) is trying to spew crap that the PS3 COD4 suffers slowdown. I bought my version of the game also, because I wanted to play with friends I know, online and with a comfortable controller. That's why I chose the PS3 version. It has absolutely no slowdown that I can remember ingame, unless you count the times where you get hit by a flashbang and you get the intentional slowdown. Maybe those rose/redmond tinted glasses need a clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 27, 2008 Subscriber² Share Posted January 27, 2008 (edited) We are talking about hardware, not game potential. The hardware does say something about game potential though. The 360 has the highest potential simply because it is a more rounded system with well balanced power, where the PS3 lacks GPU power and the Wii lacks CPU power and RAM (its GPU actually isn't all that bad if I remember correctly, at least in PC terms). The person who threw this conversation into a full argument on game potential was Audio with his comments on how hardware doesn't tell you anything about future games, and that over time the obstacles will be overcome.While I don't doubt that, the 360 has less obstacles and more power, which means it will hit its peak faster than the PS3, even if it didn't have a head start. The PS3 is just too darn complicated and too underpowered in other areas that just make the CPU worthless. I never argued at anypoint mate, I just had to clear up my opinion a few times as people misunderstood what I meant. Look at it this way, PS2 vs Xbox - Every bit of hardware inside the Xbox was better than that inside the PS2. Even with some of the talented PS2 developers working on games, people will overall agree the "top" xbox games just looked better. PS3 vs 360 - Both have hardware that beats the other & other parts fairly similar. Both have completely different architectures from what I understand and therefore I think in the hands of the right developers anyone has the potential to produce better looking games than the other this generation. I just don't think it's clear cut at all :/ If you're comparing "raw" hardware, like I think you are, you can say the 360 is better here, or the PS3 is better there but, We are talking about hardware, not game potential. The hardware does say something about game potential though. That's exactly my point. You could have the most powerful console in the world by specs, but without the right developers to squeeze everything out of it, you may not produce the fanciest games overall. It's all about being effecient and effective with what you do. And no, im not trying to turn this into a developer vs developer war, mearly suggesting we wait till the big 1st party exclusives hit with their first attempt, and even maybe a second attempt (sequels like RFOM - RFOM2 - a good example of progression as the 2nd will outclass the 1st in the visuals department). To enter deep water, I'd say something like Halo 3 could've looked much better than it does (no im not suggesting it looks bad, it doesn't so don't blow my head off), and that other games on the 360 look better - My point being Bungie are massive, have millions of money, and even they can be outclassed in the visuals department by smaller developers. It will be the same with PS3 games as well, some of the much larger studios will produce weaker looking games than some of the smaller studios, hence my idea of you having to be effective and effecient, and know the system well (had a few years with it), to produce the best results. And finally, no, im not suggesting a game has to have the best graphics to be good, gameplay is argubaly more important than visuals, but for the means of this conversation and discussing hardware, im discussing my views on how effective hardware can be in producing the best looking games. I don't see much point in owning both, and obviously the 360 version was my choice given the impressions I'd had of the PS3 version and the fact that I'd like to play online (with people I actually know), with achievements, at 1080p, and with a comfortable controller.The in-store experience wasn't the only time I saw COD4 perform slowly on a PS3. I have only two friends who also own PS3s, and the one who doesn't also have a 360 bought the PS3 version of COD4 and I saw the same thing on his system, although I just watched and didn't play it myself. It's not really bad like some other games, and maybe wouldn't be as noticeable if I wasn't used to how fluid it looks on the 360. Not to sound like an ass, but it's upscaled. You can force the PS3 to upscale the game as well, by turning off 720p in the XMB options - Therefore forcing the game to run in 1080p. COD4 from what I believe fell into a category similar to Halo 3, it wasn't even 720p native, some weird resolution like 680p or something - Correct me if im wrong, but im sure I read that somewhere. If I am wrong, then it's definitely 720p, not 1080p native. Edited January 27, 2008 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshBluebird Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Not to sound like an ass, but it's upscaled.You can force the PS3 to upscale the game as well, by turning off 720p in the XMB options - Therefore forcing the game to run in 1080p. COD4 from what I believe fell into a category similar to Halo 3, it wasn't even 720p native, some weird resolution like 680p or something - Correct me if im wrong, but im sure I read that somewhere. If I am wrong, then it's definitely 720p, not 1080p native. yeah, its 1024x600. So 600p (if you want to use that way of saying it), on both platforms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huleboeren Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 This thread is going to hell I agree with DL :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecretAgentMan Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I don't. When I played COD4 at the store on a PS3 is ran like crap, stuttering all over the place particularly whenever something exploded / moved quickly. The 360 version has no such issues.It's one thing to say they look the same, but they certainly don't run the same. I agree Brandon. My brother owns a PS3 and even he noticed how much better the game ran on my 360. I guess it just depends on how picky you are about the quality of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emn1ty Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 @ Audio The potential for the PS3 to run some insane physics calculations may make some amazing games (Little Big Planet for example). But in the end, the 360 has more potential to better its graphical quality because its GPU can simply do more. Both consoles have their pro's and cons, but the 360 will most likely look better. Although if ANYONE is a real gamer, looks are the last thing you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiracyX Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Everone seems to be saying that the 360's 3 cores are better than the PS3's 1 core and 7 sub-cores (forgotten correct terminology). This is genuine curiosity as I want the PS3 to do better, as I don't like the 360.What I want to know is if the Cell's cores are so hard to program for and can only do things for the main core and not function as actual cores, what is their purpose? Sony must have had a use for them, for example explosions or something? Or perhaps they are used for AI processing? Hopefully someone can educate me here. Stopped reading after what you said right there...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts