Take it with a grain of salt but...

Post by **Tossica** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:18 pm

http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/06/05/0933239.shtml

According to this article, the PS3 is looking pretty sad.

Griever · Post by **Griever** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:44 pm

The price tag is all I need to know to make me not purchase it.

Naethyn · Post by **Naethyn** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:45 pm

lol inquirer lol

Griever · Post by **Griever** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:46 pm

More info:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3151204

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:23 pm

erm

i can't believe anyone actually printed that

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:24 pm

Tossica wrote:http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/06/05/0933239.shtml

According to this article, the PS3 is looking pretty sad.

Lolz yes I posted way back that the processor for the ps3 was gonna suck >< look it up in archives if you don't believe me =P score 1 for me.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:26 pm

DESX wrote:
Tossica wrote:http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/06/05/0933239.shtml

According to this article, the PS3 is looking pretty sad.

Lolz yes I posted way back that the processor for the ps3 was gonna suck >< look it up in archives if you don't believe me =P score 1 for me.

you didn't even read the article did you foolman

they're quoting the inquirer~

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:28 pm

PS3 comes out a full year after the XBox360, it's still going to be inferior

It was going to be ne way.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/10 ... 27350.html

ATI: Xbox 360 will outperform PS3
"I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful," says graphics guru Richard Huddy; backward compatibility explained.
By James Yu, Tim Surette, GameSpot
Posted Jun 10, 2005 7:19 pm PT
In an interview with Web site bit-tech.net, ATI developer relations manager Richard Huddy waxed technical about Microsoft's upcoming Xbox 360 and ATI's role in the machine. The 360 will be using ATI's Xenos graphics processor, and Huddy's job is to chat with potential developers and then help them develop the tools that best use Xenos' capabilities.

With regard to the console's architecture, Huddy says, "It's way better than I would have expected at this point in the history of 3D graphics." He sees the unified pipeline, rather than segregated pixel and vertex engines, giving the 360 a huge advantage in accessible processing power.

Huddy goes on to shed some light on backward compatibility. Each Xbox game is written with specific Xbox hardware in mind, and the 360's move to PowerPCs and ATI graphics doesn't jibe with the Xbox's Intel chips and Nvidia graphics processors. To add to the difficulty, the 360 wasn't designed for backward compatibility early on in development.

To solve this, Microsoft has implemented the use of emulator programs that will let the Xbox 360 play Xbox games. According to Huddy, "emulating the CPU isn't really a difficult task. ...the real bottlenecks in the emulation are GPU calls--calls made specifically by games to the Nvidia hardware in a certain way. General GPU instructions are easy to convert: an instruction to draw a triangle in a certain way will be pretty generic. However, it's the odd cases--the proprietary routines--that will cause hassle." Once complete, the Xbox emulators could come preloaded on the unit's hard drive or be downloadable via Xbox Live.

Huddy also dispels the notion that the PlayStation 3's higher graphics clock speed (550MHz versus the 360's 500MHz) means the Sony console will outperform the Xbox 360. He believes that its ATI's unified pipeline will make the biggest difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3. ATI archrival Nvidia, which is providing the RSX graphics processor for the PS3, has chosen not to go the route of a unified pipeline.

"This time around, [Nvidia doesn't] have the architecture, and we do. So they have to knock it and say it isn't worthwhile. But in the future, they'll market themselves out of this corner, claiming that they've cracked how to do it best. But RSX isn't unified, and this is why I think PS3 will almost certainly be slower and less powerful."

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:29 pm

Tikker wrote:
DESX wrote:
Tossica wrote:http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/06/05/0933239.shtml

According to this article, the PS3 is looking pretty sad.

Lolz yes I posted way back that the processor for the ps3 was gonna suck >< look it up in archives if you don't believe me =P score 1 for me.

you didn't even read the article did you foolman

they're quoting the inquirer~

I did but it's processing speed has always been criticized as being to slow.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:39 pm

so you're quoting a 1 year old article from a biased source (the developer of the xbox graphics) as to why it'll be better than ps3?

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:46 pm

Tikker wrote:so you're quoting a 1 year old article from a biased source (the developer of the xbox graphics) as to why it'll be better than ps3?

Fine one from IGN

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

May 20, 2005 - It's 3:30 pm on Friday, May 20, the last day of E3. The fine PR folks from Microsoft, who invited us to their headquarters a week before E3 to show us their system, their specs, and the grand design behind their powerful new Xbox 360, have just sent us an urgent notice to update our specs with new information. Earlier in the day, we were sent a comparative analysis of the Xbox 360's power vs. the PlayStation 3's power.

We decided to put this Microsoft-provided information up undigested. Thus, enclosed is a Microsoft-made comparitive analysis. We have not altered, added, or tinkered with the data. We have not interpreted the specs. We have cut and pasted this information from the email into our site and formatted it. Make of it what you will, but be clear we know Microsoft has clearly slanted this info, and we're not endorsing it, just printing their version. There is a difference.

XBOX 360 / PLAYSTATION 3 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

SUMMARY
Now that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 specifications have been announced, it is possible to do a real world performance comparison of the two systems.

There are three critical performance aspects of a console:

Central Processing Unit (CPU) performance.

The Xbox 360 CPU architecture has three times the general purpose processing power of the Cell.

Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) performance

The Xbox 360 GPU design is more flexible and it has more processing power than the PS3 GPU.

Memory System Bandwidth

The memory system bandwidth in Xbox 360 exceeds the PS3's by five times.

The Xbox 360's CPU has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, and Cell has just one.

Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.

The Xbox 360 GPU has more processing power than the PS3's. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.

Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

CONCLUSION
When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 gamesâ€”by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and servicesâ€”will outperform the PlayStation 3.

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:50 pm

Just like ATI's cards are faster than Nvidia's now... uh huh.

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:55 pm

lyion wrote:Just like ATI's cards are faster than Nvidia's now... uh huh.

It never was......ATI with their pipeline's are superior in architecture to nividia.

Post by **Lyion** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:59 pm

Except the ATI cards are slower than the NVIDIA ones. Period.

Benchmarks > PR Spin. Sorry.

brinstar · Post by **brinstar** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:01 pm

Griever wrote:The price tag is all I need to know to make me not purchase it.

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:06 pm

lyion wrote:Except the ATI cards are slower than the NVIDIA ones. Period.

Benchmarks > PR Spin. Sorry.

Comon lyion I know your smarter then this. You of all people should know that even though ps3 is clocked in at 550 mhz and the 360 as 500 it doesn't matter if the architecture isn't better then the other.

Whilst the architecture of the 360 is not comparable to a PC design, Rene said that the raw performance would be roughly equivalent to a 32-pipeline PC graphics card.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/05/25 ... 360_london

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:12 pm

DESX wrote:
Tikker wrote:so you're quoting a 1 year old article from a biased source (the developer of the xbox graphics) as to why it'll be better than ps3?

Fine one from IGN

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

May 20, 2005 - It's 3:30 pm on Friday, May 20, the last day of E3. The fine PR folks from Microsoft, who invited us to their headquarters a week before E3 to show us their system, their specs, and the grand design behind their powerful new Xbox 360, have just sent us an urgent notice to update our specs with new information. Earlier in the day, we were sent a comparative analysis of the Xbox 360's power vs. the PlayStation 3's power.

We decided to put this Microsoft-provided information up undigested. Thus, enclosed is a Microsoft-made comparitive analysis. We have not altered, added, or tinkered with the data. We have not interpreted the specs. We have cut and pasted this information from the email into our site and formatted it. Make of it what you will, but be clear we know Microsoft has clearly slanted this info, and we're not endorsing it, just printing their version. There is a difference.

haha, do you even read the stuff you quote?

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:17 pm

Tikker wrote:
DESX wrote:
Tikker wrote:so you're quoting a 1 year old article from a biased source (the developer of the xbox graphics) as to why it'll be better than ps3?

Fine one from IGN

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html

May 20, 2005 - It's 3:30 pm on Friday, May 20, the last day of E3. The fine PR folks from Microsoft, who invited us to their headquarters a week before E3 to show us their system, their specs, and the grand design behind their powerful new Xbox 360, have just sent us an urgent notice to update our specs with new information. Earlier in the day, we were sent a comparative analysis of the Xbox 360's power vs. the PlayStation 3's power.

We decided to put this Microsoft-provided information up undigested. Thus, enclosed is a Microsoft-made comparitive analysis. We have not altered, added, or tinkered with the data. We have not interpreted the specs. We have cut and pasted this information from the email into our site and formatted it. Make of it what you will, but be clear we know Microsoft has clearly slanted this info, and we're not endorsing it, just printing their version. There is a difference.

haha, do you even read the stuff you quote?

Lol yes I know it will contain biased info but as in processor clock speed etc. All of that is fact can't really bias that. That was info released by both companies.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:22 pm

clock speed more and more is becoming a dated way of comparing processors, and is generally not that great a way to decide which processor to buy

instructions per clock in a lot of ways is much more important

regardless of hardware, software support will always be the most important feature

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:26 pm

Tikker wrote:clock speed more and more is becoming a dated way of comparing processors, and is generally not that great a way to decide which processor to buy

instructions per clock in a lot of ways is much more important

regardless of hardware, software support will always be the most important feature

Yeah I know architecture was the thing I was trying to get across right now the big difference in the processors and what will set them apart is the pipeline's in the xbox 360 even though the ps3 processor is faster.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:32 pm

DESX wrote:
Tikker wrote:clock speed more and more is becoming a dated way of comparing processors, and is generally not that great a way to decide which processor to buy

instructions per clock in a lot of ways is much more important

regardless of hardware, software support will always be the most important feature

Yeah I know architecture was the thing I was trying to get across right now the big difference in the processors and what will set them apart is the pipeline's in the xbox 360 even though the ps3 processor is faster.

hardware is going to be a non-factor for the most part

it's going to be about the unique titles for each system, and whether or not Sony can come up with a gaming service like Xbox Live(which is pretty well done)

DESX · Post by **DESX** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:45 pm

Tikker wrote:
DESX wrote:
Tikker wrote:clock speed more and more is becoming a dated way of comparing processors, and is generally not that great a way to decide which processor to buy

instructions per clock in a lot of ways is much more important

regardless of hardware, software support will always be the most important feature

Yeah I know architecture was the thing I was trying to get across right now the big difference in the processors and what will set them apart is the pipeline's in the xbox 360 even though the ps3 processor is faster.

hardware is going to be a non-factor for the most part

it's going to be about the unique titles for each system, and whether or not Sony can come up with a gaming service like Xbox Live(which is pretty well done)

Yeah I must admit that sony always has had titles that are very good and more so then microsoft, which is the reason that I will probably also purchase the ps3 when it comes out. But for now ill just worry about the Wii to come out since it will be a lot sooner anyway, I wanna give them all a whirl.

Drem · Post by **Drem** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:14 pm

funny, i always thought Xbox should make an internet service like the PS2 did and not fucking charge money per month for something that comes installed in your system.

i only play halo 2 on xbox live and just from that i think playing on Xlink Kai is a lot better. xbox live auto sorts everything and you have 0 control over your games unless it's a custom game. it also likes to split the teams up a lotâ€”like 3 of us will be playing on one xbox and it puts two ppl on one team and one person on the other team and you can't change it. i always thought it was kind of stupid compared to the free alternatives

Lionking · Post by **Lionking** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:44 am

Tikker wrote:
DESX wrote:
Tossica wrote:http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/06/05/0933239.shtml

According to this article, the PS3 is looking pretty sad.

Lolz yes I posted way back that the processor for the ps3 was gonna suck >< look it up in archives if you don't believe me =P score 1 for me.

you didn't even read the article did you foolman

they're quoting the inquirer~

You are confusing the <b>I</b>nquirer with the National <b>E</b>nquirer.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:56 am

This thread had me laughing pretty hard.

namelesstavern.net

Take it with a grain of salt but...

Take it with a grain of salt but...

Re: Take it with a grain of salt but...

Re: Take it with a grain of salt but...

Re: Take it with a grain of salt but...

Re: Take it with a grain of salt but...