Sucker Punch: Half a PS3 is better than a whole 360

[bob_c_b]

So how do you watch your movies in HD, on your nice living room HDTV? Without pirating them, that is.

While I love my BD player and own many Blu Ray movies, I do also have several completely legal, 1080p movies from the Zune store on Xbox Live including a superlative copy of Star Trek 2009 that looks stunning on my 1080p set. In fact the only real difference between the BD and the download of that flick is the lack of uncompressed audio, so while there is still a good case to won films on BD for that reason alone, legal and high quality downloads are showing up, including on the PS3 video store. So maybe ease up a little there on the idea that downloads aren't starting to penetrate the marketplace, k?

As for the topic, very lame Suckerpunch, the same kind of stupid stuff that has been said several times by Sony exclusive devs and has potential to blow up in their face when the game ships and isn't pretty much perfect (like the other times devs have stated this rubbish). And while I'm huge fan of the Uncharted series, in fact it's the whole reason I bought a PS3, let's not pretend there aren't some equally impressive games on the 360.

[BajiRav]

ok, I'm going to leave this thread with a note. While everything you guys say sounds pretty convincing, why would the game studio use time and resources to make God of War III 40.1GB? Because they are bored and really trying to impress the boss, doubt it. Also the cost of the discs, if I could spend 90 cents on a disc or 9 dollars on a disc, I think I would go with 90 cents if it wasn't important, Also, the comment from Emn1ty, why would they put the Cell processor in the PS3 costing tons of money and losing millions of dollars, just so that they can say ooh, we got a Cell processor, the 360 guys got a crappier one. This has gone somewhat off topic, although I do understand where you and Hawkman are coming from, it just seems that the companies and studios would do totally opposite of what they are doing if it was the case. Also, on the texture thing (or anything), just because I can RAR something up or make it smaller to load only to extract to memory from a disc does not qualify as "smart" , only as saving disc space and making the machine work twice as hard.

In hindsight, I think that's exactly why sony did it.

[bob_c_b]

In hindsight, I think that's exactly why sony did it.

Kind of actually, after you spend a certain amount of money on product development, at some point you are financially committed and cannot change course. So you begin to make the best of what you have, even if it's not as great as you had hoped. The tech industry is loaded with examples of this, so yea, that is what Sony did.

[spaceelf]

Cell isn't actually a bad arch though. The version in the PS3 proc has weak integer performance, but very strong floating point performance. I'd like to see more of Cell outside the PS3, but I don't see that happening.

[clotz2000]

In hindsight, I think that's exactly why sony did it.

yeah, they do seem to have that $ony ego to carry with them, :laugh:

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

LOL "futureproof"

what does that even mean?

Easily upgradeable and/or can adopt new market additions when they arise.

[Massiveterra]

I have never ever seen in the history of consumer electronics anything that has been futureproof. It's actually in the best interest of electronics companies NOT to make their products futureproof.

To me, the term "futureproof" is just marketing BS to make people think they're investment is worth 10+ years. When they're just going to buy something new in about 5 or less years anyway.

[Hedon]

My PS3 and 360 only have 512mb, and doesn't support any more than that. So much for future proof. Lowest common denominator just wiped future.

[Lazure]

Game consoles have always had piddly RAM compared to PCs. Remember that these game consoles aren't running a full Operating System like Windows or MacOSX beneath the game you're playing, and as such almost every megabyte is being dedicated to the game, with maybe a little being given to XMB/Dashboard information that alerts you when people are coming/going offline and when you bring up their respective menus during gameplay; still, that's nothing compared to having a full explorer shell + system services + drivers + ... you get the point. Also, because the consoles have a standardized amount of RAM, all games can be optimized for that amount of memory and do not require users to tweak graphics settings for the game to run better or worse.

Also, having limited RAM keeps the consoles cheaper. RAM was uber cheap (especially DDR2) two years ago, (hell, I upgraded my 2GB to 6GB for $32 december 2008, just before Win7 beta was released). However, nowadays RAM is over $100 for any reasonable quality or amount.

If I recall though, the graphics processing in these systems are similar to like.. a 7900gs or something, which is pretty dated by PC standards. However, unlike in PCs, the CPUs in game consoles do a hell of a lot more work in conjunction to the GPU which improves and balances the load, allowing these games to still look quite beautiful, but mostly in or around ~720p. To make a point, I can run ports of the same games in a 1280x720 window on my PC running a core 2 duo e6400 2.13ghz and a 256mb 8600 gts with 6gb of ddr2 800mhz RAM on high settings reasonably well. It's 1920x1080 that kills most modern games for me. =p So yeah, these consoles are basically about as powerful as my machine by the end of the day, give or take depending on the type of things the game is demanding.

I do find, though, that Xbox 360 versions of games seem to run in a lower resolution than the PS3 versions do a lot of the time. Even Halo 3 had a buffer resolution less than 720p, and that was an exclusive (still would love for a PC version to come out of that).

[Unrealistic]

Neither console is future proof. They're both already slaughtered by an average new PC.

Neither console is going anywhere anytime soon. While you may be right, the ease of use by both consoles still is a huge factor in why my rig is still used as a Desktop and not a "Gaming Rig".

[notuptome2004]

Game consoles have always had piddly RAM compared to PCs. Remember that these game consoles aren't running a full Operating System like Windows or MacOSX beneath the game you're playing, and as such almost every megabyte is being dedicated to the game, with maybe a little being given to XMB/Dashboard information that alerts you when people are coming/going offline and when you bring up their respective menus during gameplay; still, that's nothing compared to having a full explorer shell + system services + drivers + ... you get the point. Also, because the consoles have a standardized amount of RAM, all games can be optimized for that amount of memory and do not require users to tweak graphics settings for the game to run better or worse.

Also, having limited RAM keeps the consoles cheaper. RAM was uber cheap (especially DDR2) two years ago, (hell, I upgraded my 2GB to 6GB for $32 december 2008, just before Win7 beta was released). However, nowadays RAM is over $100 for any reasonable quality or amount.

If I recall though, the graphics processing in these systems are similar to like.. a 7900gs or something, which is pretty dated by PC standards. However, unlike in PCs, the CPUs in game consoles do a hell of a lot more work in conjunction to the GPU which improves and balances the load, allowing these games to still look quite beautiful, but mostly in or around ~720p. To make a point, I can run ports of the same games in a 1280x720 window on my PC running a core 2 duo e6400 2.13ghz and a 256mb 8600 gts with 6gb of ddr2 800mhz RAM on high settings reasonably well. It's 1920x1080 that kills most modern games for me. =p So yeah, these consoles are basically about as powerful as my machine by the end of the day, give or take depending on the type of things the game is demanding.

I do find, though, that Xbox 360 versions of games seem to run in a lower resolution than the PS3 versions do a lot of the time. Even Halo 3 had a buffer resolution less than 720p, and that was an exclusive (still would love for a PC version to come out of that).

the RXS Nvidia GPU in the PS3 is an off thr shelf 7800 series card witch would be 1.5 generation or more older then the Xeon 360 GPU and besides that it was thrown in at the last minute it is based on a Per pixel pipeline architecture witch consist of 24 Pixel shaders and 4 or 8 vertex shaders .

the 360 uses the first GPU ever to be a unified shader based architecture witch is more advanced then the RSX in every way you can think of and Developers have more headroom for performance and long shader based calls also the 360 has 512mb of V-ram and a 10mb fast Edram daughter die for some task as opposed to the 256 dedicated to the RSX .

[Hedon]

I do find, though, that Xbox 360 versions of games seem to run in a lower resolution than the PS3 versions do a lot of the time. Even Halo 3 had a buffer resolution less than 720p, and that was an exclusive (still would love for a PC version to come out of that).

I'm actually finding that the 360 version of games is running in a higher resolution than the PS3 most of the time.

[bjoswald]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

[Emn1ty]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

:huh:

[Spookie]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

andherewego.jpg

[rajputwarrior]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

take out the first part of your name and you have a bang on description of how you just sounded in this post

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

^Or you could just add an "Un" in front. ;)

[rajputwarrior]

^Or you could just add an "Un" in front. ;)

either or

[soniqstylz]

Cell isn't actually a bad arch though. The version in the PS3 proc has weak integer performance, but very strong floating point performance. I'd like to see more of Cell outside the PS3, but I don't see that happening.

See also IMB blade servers and Toshiba's newest line of 3D tv's.

the RXS Nvidia GPU in the PS3 is an off thr shelf 7800 series card witch would be 1.5 generation or more older then the Xeon 360 GPU and besides that it was thrown in at the last minute it is based on a Per pixel pipeline architecture witch consist of 24 Pixel shaders and 4 or 8 vertex shaders .

the 360 uses the first GPU ever to be a unified shader based architecture witch is more advanced then the RSX in every way you can think of and Developers have more headroom for performance and long shader based calls also the 360 has 512mb of V-ram and a 10mb fast Edram daughter die for some task as opposed to the 256 dedicated to the RSX .

They both have 512, the Xbox has a unified 512 that both CPU and GPU have acess to. RSX has 256, but can also gain access to the main CPU 256. If I'm not mistaken, the PS3 memory is (or was, at the time of release), superfast.

[spaceelf]

See also IMB blade servers and Toshiba's newest line of 3D tv's.

Couldn't care less about servers, glad someone's using it though.

[AbandonedTrolley]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

Wow You really don't know a single PS3 owner?

I think there are more Wii owners than 360 too but that doesn't prove anything..

I don't think either console is trying to catch up with each other, they are both pretty much on a level playing field now. I'm not counting the Wii as that's not really comparable to the PS3/360.

Looking at the games coming out on both machines, the multi platforms are still looking pretty similar and the exclusives are still blowing away the multi platforms. It does still seem the norm that if there is a bad version that the PS3 gets it. RDR being an example of not being a 1-1 port and being slightly below 360 standard. Didn't make the game any worse though.

[soniqstylz]

Wow You really don't know a single PS3 owner?

I think there are more Wii owners than 360 too but that doesn't prove anything..

I don't think either console is trying to catch up with each other, they are both pretty much on a level playing field now. I'm not counting the Wii as that's not really comparable to the PS3/360.

Looking at the games coming out on both machines, the multi platforms are still looking pretty similar and the exclusives are still blowing away the multi platforms. It does still seem the norm that if there is a bad version that the PS3 gets it. RDR being an example of not being a 1-1 port and being slightly below 360 standard. Didn't make the game any worse though.

[Hedon]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

[Darrian]

No it isn't. The PS3 is just an overpriced Blu-Ray player with gaming capability thrown in. It's overblown, overpriced and not necessary. The 360 is cheaper, has a way better library, and a better online community (features, not people). I don't know a single person who owns a PS3. Hell, I think there are more Wii owners that PS3 owners, and they don't even play it anymore. What does that tell you? The PS3 has been a joke since day one, and it's still trying to catch up.

If it has a better library then why is it the only (exclusive) game it has that interests me is Alan Wake (which was supposed to come to the PC and they ****ed us)? Also, a community is made of people, not features, but I am old-school enough to be boggled at anybody wanting to use a console for online anything; that's why we have PCs.

[bob_c_b]

I'm actually finding that the 360 version of games is running in a higher resolution than the PS3 most of the time.

This, ask any RDR player.