PS3 vs X-box 360

[tha_con]

To put more sources to that, 1up has also stated the same, referencing Famitsu as well, who are very reliable.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3145024

 

[Dave A]

Thats good news then, very good news.

 

[livemusic]

Ah, cool. I've read this on a Brazilian website, but since most of you guys wouldn´t understand Portuguese I searched IGN and GameSpot, without luck.

So I decided to write it myself.

 

[tha_con]

Gamespot and IGN won't really report on Speculation, though I would expect to see this in their Rumor Mill (provided it's posted in their forums, lol, since that's where most of it comes from).

 

[LaBounti]

If that is in fact true then stand alone blu-ray disc players will have to do morethan play movies to get anyone to buy them for $800

 

[Solid Lifters]

If that is in fact true then stand alone blu-ray disc players will have to do morethan play movies to get anyone to buy them for $800

Yes, they already have a second generation BD recorder. !st gen BD recorders already have hit the pre-release market in Japan. Some with a 300 GB hard drive. They retali for about $1,100 to $1,300. None have been sold to the public, as far as I know.

Most likely, BD devices will be player only for $300, a player with HD for around $700 and a recorder-player with HD for over $1,000.

 

[Dave A]

Makes sense, ofcourse, 3 or 4 years down the line we'll be seeing standard BD players for 30-40 quid just like DVD's I expect.

 

[LaBounti]

In case anyone didnt no it 1080p TV's are already on the market. What was all the talk during E3 about these TVs not existing when ps3 comes out?

!080p is here but there are virtually no HDTV sources avable. And HDTV signals max refresh rate is 30fps in 1080p("1080p30") because of the required bandwith is higher than cable or satilite can provide right now from what i read.

PS3 will change that. You can bet many BD movies will be in 1080p. I dont think many games will be 1080p if they want 60fps.

 

[tha_con]

In case anyone didnt no it 1080p TV's are already on the market. What was all the talk during E3 about these TVs not existing when ps3 comes out?

!080p is here but there are virtually no HDTV sources avable. And HDTV signals max refresh rate is 30fps in 1080p("1080p30") because of the required bandwith is higher than cable or satilite can provide right now from what i read.

PS3 will change that. You can bet many BD movies will be in 1080p. I dont think many games will be 1080p if they want 60fps.

60fps won't really be super important if developers learn how to use motion blur, then things would move a bit more fluid like during fast action sequences, more like in movies (since movies use motion blur, 24fps is capable of looking like "reality" so 30fps + motion blur should be fine).

 

[Solid Lifters]

In case anyone didnt no it 1080p TV's are already on the market. What was all the talk during E3 about these TVs not existing when ps3 comes out?

!080p is here but there are virtually no HDTV sources avable. And HDTV signals max refresh rate is 30fps in 1080p("1080p30") because of the required bandwith is higher than cable or satilite can provide right now from what i read.

PS3 will change that. You can bet many BD movies will be in 1080p. I dont think many games will be 1080p if they want 60fps.

Don't forget, most HDTV sets that 'advertize' as '1080p' don't have 1080p as the native resolution. They only mean it can recieve a 1080p source and convert it to the sets native resolution, which is usually something like 724p for LCD, Plasm and DLP sets, and 920i for CRT sets. Very little sets will do actual 1080p.

Plus, 1080p is 60FPS by default. That's what makes it 1080p! Well, one aspect of it. But, yes, there are 1080p30, 1080p50, 1080p60 and even 1080p24 available. You should know that 1080i is 1080 lines shot progressively, but the image is split in two; a left side and a right side. But, each side is shot progressively onto the screen. 1080p, either 1080p30, or whatnot, is never split in two seperate fields.

Did I just confuse you?

 

[TVRKing]

Don't forget, most HDTV sets that 'advertize' as '1080p' don't have 1080p as the native resolution. They only mean it can recieve a 1080p source and convert it to the sets native resolution, which is usually something like 724p for LCD, Plasm and DLP sets, and 920i for CRT sets. Very little sets will do actual 1080p.

Plus, 1080p is 60FPS by default. That's what makes it 1080p! Well, one aspect of it. But, yes, there are 1080p30, 1080p50, 1080p60 and even 1080p24 available. You should know that 1080i is 1080 lines shot progressively, but the image is split in two; a left side and a right side. But, each side is shot progressively onto the screen. 1080p, either 1080p30, or whatnot, is never split in two seperate fields.

Did I just confuse you?

Yes.

 

[LaBounti]

Did I just confuse you?

Not one bit. 1080p is 60 fps but cable signals and satellite lack the bandwith to do 60fps currently. Only local sources can do 60fps right now but there are none.

60fps won't really be super important if developers learn how to use motion blur, then things would move a bit more fluid like during fast action sequences, more like in movies (since movies use motion blur, 24fps is capable of looking like "reality" so 30fps + motion blur should be fine).

True, thats the reason games that run 24fps are an eye sore but 24p film looks smooth.

 

[tha_con]

I don't think there are any HD broadcasts that are progressive are there? I mean, they are all 480i, 720i, or 1080i aren't they? I don't think any of them are capable of sending out anything in progressive quite yet.

 

[rsmithdrift]

Sorry if I may have skipped someone who posted this previously........but I'm worried now.

I just found out something specs for the two systems.

PS3: 256mb graphics processor
XBOX 360: 512mb graphics processor

PS3: 3.2ghz processor speed
XBOX 360: 3.2ghz processor speed

PS3: 256mb RDRam
XBOX 360: 512mb eDRAM

PS3 Comes out later and has less power

Here are the links
PS3: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Sony-PlayStation-3-15015-S-4-5
XBOX 360: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Microsoft-Xbox-360-15016-S-4-5

Hopefully the PS3 will be better and they just haven't updated or something.

 

[Nasadus]

Hmm, that doesn't look right.

X-Box 360 has 512MB GDDR3 RAM in total. That's for both the CPU and the GPU.
The PS3 has 252MB of XDR RAM for the CPU and 256MB of GDDR3 RAM for the GPU so they both have the same amount. The only difference is that the PS3's XDR RAM runs at 3.2 Ghz compared to the X-Box 360's RAM wich runs at 700 Mhz.

 

[Dave A]

Sorry if I may have skipped someone who posted this previously........but I'm worried now.

I just found out something specs for the two systems.

PS3: 256mb graphics processor
XBOX 360: 512mb graphics processor

PS3: 3.2ghz processor speed
XBOX 360: 3.2ghz processor speed

PS3: 256mb RDRam
XBOX 360: 512mb eDRAM

PS3 Comes out later and has less power

Here are the links
PS3: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Sony-PlayStation-3-15015-S-4-5
XBOX 360: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Microsoft-Xbox-360-15016-S-4-5

Hopefully the PS3 will be better and they just haven't updated or something.

Thats a nice little twist on the facts there, the PS3 and X360 have the same ammount of RAM, the XB360 simply allows the developer to choose how much of the RAM he dedicates towards graphics and programming wheras the PS3's is split 50/50. Also the PS3's RAM runs at a faster rate, pro's and con's in this department, both have an upper hand in different areas but neither is significantly more powerful or weaker than the other.

 

[LaBounti]

Games dont even need 256mb of graphic memory to look great, some do for ubber high quality textures like in Doom3(512). But games can look great using less than 128mb, A console with 256mb of main ram can go far beyond what a pc can do with just 256.

And dont forget the cpu and gpu can access both ram types.

 

[Driftster]

so....the Ps3 has already defined indicators....

meaning there is no variation..

however if the game in question being developed needs say 51% towards looking that much better...and only 49% of the other programming....Wouldn't that just be bad ass?

Or even better yet..someone manages to simplify the coding, meaning less coding is needed..that gives the 360 that X amount to use on graphics......

variable is almost always better than predetermined..you know that...

Still getting both....(probably)

 

[code_kev]

Splitting the memory is abit...silly it has to be said. I honestly don't know why they don't just stick a gig in , it's gonna cost and arm and a leg anyway!

 

[Driftster]

haha...you're right..I'd be perfectly happy with my console being another....1/8th of an inch thicker for the extra power....

might run a tad hotter though..but oh well

When I get it i'm gonna mod it anywho

 

[tha_con]

Splitting the memory is abit...silly it has to be said. I honestly don't know why they don't just stick a gig in , it's gonna cost and arm and a leg anyway!

No it's not, it's much better than allocating the 512 to the entire system.

If one part of the system bogs down, or requires more memory, the entire system is crippled because now you have something that demands more memory than it was previously allocated.

If you have 51% allocated to programming tasks etc, and 49% allocated for visuals, but there is too much going on screen and it requires extra physics, AI, and other tasks that might take up more than 51% of the memory allocation, then you will see a slowdown.

With it being split 50/50, you will never see one part of the system cripple another. Not to mention the other 256MB of GDDR3 is accessable to the GPU at any time, and serves as an apature, like traditional AGP drives.

So, the theory tha major nelson started, in that websites idiocy and search for superiority, is proven false.

Splitting = Better. Proven. Look at your PC Kev. I'm sure all of your memory isn't onboard and your GPU just uses that...it has it's own specific memory. It's SPLIT. System Memory / GPU memory. And you're PC outperforms current consoles, and probably can hang with the 360 can't it. Yep. Smile

 

[LaBounti]

A possible fact is since the Cell uses 2 on chip XDR controllers, 512mb of XDR would be far more expensive. Good ole cheap GDDR.

 

[Driftster]

If you have 51% allocated to programming tasks etc, and 49% allocated for visuals, but there is too much going on screen and it requires extra physics, AI, and other tasks that might take up more than 51% of the memory allocation, then you will see a slowdown.
Smile

which is why..when people MAKE games...they do this amazing thing called "testing!"



Versatility makes all the choices up to the designers!!!!!

which ..GASP...has the possibility of being better!!!

would you rather have a salary cap per player on your team or a salary cap per team?

I personally would rather have a cap per team, means you can have some key figures as apposed to a bunch of "joe's"

Call my crazy, but I really don't think people are going to be making a game that is designed to make the system run like crap....

Oh wait.....they did that already.......Anyone remember Killzone...

Maybe they setup the Ps3 that way, so the fools who pumped that game out wouldn't have a repeat..

 

[LaBounti]

I remember Killzone, it didnt run perfect but it had some of the most detailed charactors you'll ever see on PS2. Look at their faces closeup and cant even spot a polygon edge.

But it doesnt matter if both CPU and GPU can use either type of ram.

 

[code_kev]

which is why..when people MAKE games...they do this amazing thing called "testing!"

Give that man a cookie.

Splitting ram may be nice in some ways, but over all, in terms of the good ol' console, it limits it in others. You PS2 dudes Bang ON AND ON about flexability this, flexability that, well there you go. Imagine the situation. They want to make a HUGE world, needs 300 mb of ram to program it all, with the Ai, and physics, and the sound, and so on and so on. Lets say needs 200mb for the textures etc. I dunno, it's silly, but hear me out. Damn they say, we are limited to 256mb, damn, lets make some cuts. If the memory is shared, no problem! I'm not trying to say that ps3 sucks or anything (it's scary fast), 256 is ALOT of a console, and I can't imagine it being a problem anyway.

And no, my pc can't match a 360. Sadly

I also think comparing a PC set up, to say a console set up is abit...off.

You made some good points though Tha_con.

I remember Killzone, it didnt run perfect

Understatement of the year .

 

[Driftster]

code kev..you're right......chances are...50/50 is going to be the norm...or some balance..or else some things are going to outweight other things..and things will conflict..and the game will screw up..

BUT!!!

point is....

Giving that option.....IS better...considering we don't know what could happen in the future...

 

[LaBounti]

Dont you guys no not to dissagree with tha_con . Its going to add anohter 2-3 pages going off the topic.

But the example code used may be problematic for say a multiplatform game only. But you seem to be forgetting the total ram can be used for graphics or game code so there wont need to be any cuts.

 

[Nasadus]

I knew i should have mentioned this before.
The shared RAM of the 360 may sound good in theory but it actually isn't very well implemented. You see the GPU has to go thru the CPU to get to the RAM wich taxes the CPU. This is a potential bottleneck for the 360.
With the PS3 even though the RAM is officially separated, both the CPU and the GPU can acces eachothers memory independently if it was deemed neccesary by the developer. So the PS3 has a big advantage in this area.

 

[tha_con]

Give that man a cookie.

Splitting ram may be nice in some ways, but over all, in terms of the good ol' console, it limits it in others. You PS2 dudes Bang ON AND ON about flexability this, flexability that, well there you go. Imagine the situation. They want to make a HUGE world, needs 300 mb of ram to program it all, with the Ai, and physics, and the sound, and so on and so on. Lets say needs 200mb for the textures etc. I dunno, it's silly, but hear me out. Damn they say, we are limited to 256mb, damn, lets make some cuts. If the memory is shared, no problem! I'm not trying to say that ps3 sucks or anything (it's scary fast), 256 is ALOT of a console, and I can't imagine it being a problem anyway.

And no, my pc can't match a 360. Sadly

I also think comparing a PC set up, to say a console set up is abit...off.

You made some good points though Tha_con.



Understatement of the year .

I think you keep overlooking the fact that there is no cap on the PS3 memory (to say 256MB is the cap). It is incorrect. The PS3 is capable of using ALL OF THE SYSTEM MEMROY.

However, the 256MB figure, is ONLY for dedicated memory. This is what the GPU has as EXCLUSIVE memory. The other 256MB of system memory is available to the GPU to use. Now that this is out of the way, I can farther explain.

Testing does not catch any and everything. If you're playing a shooter, and you fire off 10 missiles, and so do a bunch of other people, that is not a typical situation, however, it happens, and if memory is shared, the system has to fight for it. Plain and simple.

So, this is why having dedicated memory can be more advantageous.


Drifster - You don't even understand the hardware of both consoles.

 

[Driftster]

Yes Sir!!!

Maybe once you clear out those pesky poor people who can't afford High Def TV's you can deal with me....

Stupid Middle Class America!