awesome graphics does not mean awesome games

This is kind of boring because everyone has different tastes. My issue with the 360 is that for fps I would rather play on a pc. But Playstation has always had more/better games. Look at gamespot and look at the number of high rated ps2 games vs xbox or ps2 vs xbox and xbox 360.

I will probably get a ps3 when I can get the games for $20. I dont mind paying for hardware but $60 per game(ps3 or 360) isn't going to happen.

MGS4
Grand Turismo
Resistance Fall of Man
Army of Two
Devil May Cry
Tekken 6
Final Fantasy
Virtua Fighter
killzone 2
Ratchet and Clank

Plus the playstation still has a lot of big series that sequals havent been announced for yet.(like socom)
I'm willing to bet that the upcoming god of war 2 and zelda are going to be better than anything in the xbox 360s current catalog.

Games aren't all graphics anyway if its not fun who cares what it looks like.

there is a PS3 version of Splinter Cell Double Agent (SC4) http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/splintercell4/index.html

PS3 not only has better games but the PS3 itself has better specs for its console. not mention a next Gen video player built-in as well.

Saints Row? A next gen free roaming game that looks to compete against the GTA series. All I'm saying is, 360 has plenty of good games, but are overlooked for Sonys tired series (I.E, Final Fantasy, MGS4, etc.)

i think having good graphics means awsome gaming. it really comes down to ones opinion and perspective on a point of view.

XGuNn3rX,
have you seen a video between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray? because i have. our neighbour has a HD-Blu-Ray player in their living room and they paid a little over AU$2,500 for it. i compared the two together and without much time. there was this immense difference between the two.

xbox is a good console, awsome gaming and you the rest but what im saying is, its crap compared to the PS3. i have played many many hours on the 360. and everyone i know thats got a 360 is also prepared to get the PS3 when its launched.

all microsoft fan boys only and probably will always say the PS3 is only slightly better than the 360. i dont blame you for denying the truth when you're a fanboy.

it depends what kind of game you make with awsome graphics. and i doubt you could.

how is the PS3 outdated? and as you said yourself. the PS3 isnt even out yet so how could everyone say HD-DVD > Blu-Ray? and you didnt answer my question earlier. "have you seen a video between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray?"

picture quality? it all depends on how the data is encoded(unless it's a raw source).

No I haven't seen HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in action, but everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is saying that HD-DVD has better picture quality then Blu-Ray.

if you havent then you havent experienced how the quality is really like. you should experience it yourself rather listening what most people will say. in your opinion, how many people is everyone? i can tell you now that not everyone thinks the HD-DVD is better than the BD. try asking people that is not in the Microsoft fanboy groups and see what sort of an answer you will get. before you do that. i can tell you now that not everyone thinks the HD-DVD is better, why? because i dont think it is. there you go, not EVERYONE thinks its better.

So the question is, just how powerful is the Cell? Simple: NOT THAT POWERFUL. Lets explore:

The cell = 9 cores, 3.2 GHz

On top of this, the Cell is at this current phase, reliant on the RSX as a backup. In early cell testing, the RSX was used as both a GPU and a backup cell for data processing. Should the cell fill up or fail at any task, the RSX would take over that task and any others necessary until the CPU could stabilize. However, the RSX was in select cases overloading and then the ER protocols would force the data back to the CPU causing system failure and interruption with data streaming.

Also, the Cell only float 2 Teraflops where a sophisticated PC can run anywhere between 4 and 6. Your average supercomputer can hit over 100TB easily.

Furthermore, the Cell and RSX are restrained by minimal PS3 resources from the RAM. The mPS3 has 256MB of Main RAM, about enough for your average PC to run Microsoft office. Of course, the cell allows games to be played at higher speeds with less RAM because of its 9 cores for data processing, but eventually tehre will come a point where 256MB just wont be enough. Even now, games like Oblivion on the PC require 1GB of RAM to be run at max setting and the Xbox 360 with its only 512MB of RAM cant handle the max settings because of it. Its going to be a problem that will limmit the cell.

O yes, the arguement is back and better than ever. You could say, fresh cows revived it

I had some cows trying to convince me I was nuts, that the playstation 3 rivals "supercomputers" (he then proceeded to say orginal supercomputers which rival the processing and graphical power of most current day calculators...nice example cows) Anyways, I decided to check it out a bit more in depth. What I found was that the PS3 is not only an outdated piece of harware, but its farily low tech by "supercomputer" standards.

Below is a lost of the PS3 technical specifications. Keep in mind that much of it is give in take. It plays alot of stuff, but DVD, DVD R, DVD RW and DVD R+ are just fancy names for DVD.

PLAYSTATION 3 SPECIFICATIONS

CPU: Cell Processor PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
--1 VMX vector unit per core
--512KB L2 cache
--7 x SPE @3.2GHz
--7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
--7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
--*1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
--Total floating point performance: 218 gigaflops

GPU RSX @ 550MHz
--1.8 TFLOPS floating point Performance
--Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
--Multi-way programmable parallel Floating point shader pipelines
--Sound Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-based processing)

MEMORY
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
System Bandwidth Main RAM-- 25.6GB/s
VRAM--22.4GB/s
RSX-- 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

SYSTEM FLOATING POINT PERFORMANCE:
2 teraflops

STORAGE
--HDD Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1
--I/O--USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
--Memory Stickstandard/Duo, PRO x 1
--SD standard/mini x 1
--CompactFlash(Type I, II) x 1

COMMUNICATION
--Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)
--Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g
--Bluetooth--Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
--ControllerBluetooth (up to 7)
--USB 2.0 (wired)
--Wi-Fi (PSP)
--Network (over IP)

AV OUTPUT
Screen size 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
HDMI out x 2
AV multi out x 1
Digital out (optical) x 1

DISC MEDIA
CD
PlayStation CD-ROM
PlayStation2 CD-ROM
CD-DA
CD-DA (ROM),
CD-R,
CD-RW
SACD Hybrid (CD layer),
SACD HD
DualDisc (audio side)
DualDisc (DVD side)
PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM
PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM
DVD-ROM
DVD-R
DVD-RW
DVD+R,
DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc
PlayStation 3 BD-ROM
BD-ROM
BD

Now I will give you the specs of your state of the art Supercomputer vs the PS3 (SC to the left, PS3 to the right)

Nvidia 7950................RSX (comprable to the Nvidia 7900 in terms of raw power) clocked like a G70

4-6 TF of RAM....................dual 256 MB PCI (256 Main)

Dual/Tri Core 4.0 GHz pentium D celeron with hyperthreading..........1 VMX vector unit per core, 3.2 GHz

250GB-1 TF of System Memory...............80 GB of compact flash storage

Dolby 12.1 surround sound card.................7.1 surround sound output

Floating Performace - 80-100+ teraflops ..........2 teraflops

In terms of performance, the supercomputer can load over 2000 times as fast as the PS3, with superior output for graphics, sound, system cache and so on.

in comparision to this dell http://www.dell.com/content/products/produ...on=specs#tabtop the dell is superior

when compared to this alienware state of the art ALX model gaming PC, the PC is on top by a long shot http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pa...DEFAULT#pdp-nav

heck, the PS3 is even beaten out by Apple Computer's iMAC:

1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache

512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM

160GB Serial ATA hard drive

Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive

ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory

So point is cows, the PS3 is comprable to a mid range PC, not a high end PC or a gaming PC that was built this year. PCs have advanced beyond PS3 with things like the PhysX Ageia physics card, the Nvidia 7950, Tri Core processing and so on. The PS3 falls into a range with the 400 dollar gateways in terms of sheer performance, which is sad considering atleast 50 bucks of teh gateway is going to pay for the monitor that is thrown in.

Basically, the only thing setting the PS3 above any PC or above the Xbox 360 is the Blu-Ray player. On the flipside, the initial reviews for Blu-Ray were negative, sighting its cost and size as a waste because its quality for the first titles was actually inferior to that of HD DVD, and it was comprable to regualr DVD9. Shame. http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5600201-1.html , http://reviews.cnet.com/Samsung_BD_P1000/4...7-31799185.html

So in a sense you are getting what you are paying for. A supercomputer would set you back 4-6 grand no sweat. The PS3 is costing 600 bucks, but its giving you a bit more than its costing you. Yes its true, from a technical standpoint the PS3 is cheaper than the sum of its parts (but so are most PCs, and so is the Xbox 360). That doesnt make it cheap, it means you arent paying premium so dont expect it.

to wrap up


>


Making a long story short, the cell is a breakthrough in modern computer science, but not a landmark. You need to understand, the cell was build specifically to run small applications and datastreaming that would not require it to overclock for any reason. It was built originally to run the new GE catscan machines and power Xray machines for medical useage. As far as raw power goes, the Cell is by no means the most pwoerful or the most advanced CPU that exists. It is build for small PCs and devices with less than 9 systems operating on them at low speeds.

keep in mind that nothing is certain or nailed in stone, and that above all, a PC isnt the same as a console. I give you the comparison because I dont ever want to hear the PS3 is a supercomputer arguement again, not because its fair. Also remember that the cell is restricted by the PS3, its maximum potential for speed and processing power as a CPU isnt fulfilled in the PS3 architecture. PS3 plays games and nothing else, so it economiizes to do so, but it isnt the best environment to examine the power of a new CPU or GPU.

H-DVD has got nothing to do with Microsoft or Microsoft fanboys. I'd rather believe the majority then your obviously biased opinion.

Overall, given the performance records; I'd say that the Playstation series is far superior to the XBox series.

However, back when the PS2 came out there was an rumor where the DVD reader would go bad because people were playing DVD movies with it. Well, those geniuses who said that didn't realize that the games you play in the PS2 were also on DVD media, so it made no difference at all.

it had quit reading the blue discs that the early ps2 games were on.(btw what were those? Are they just blue dvds?)

And that article's not at all biased . (on a side note the article would have a little more credence if you provided the source)

I really don't see why you get so irate about it. It is what it is, does it really matter whether its not as good as a 'supercomputer'? (which is a completely irrelevant comparison IMO)

Play whatever system you like for the games you like. Who cares what it can or cannot do. It's meant to do one thing primarily and that is to play games. If it doesn't have your favorite genre, then buy the one that does. Specs on a gaming console really mean absolutely nothing.

I personally think the PS3 looks fine. I may even buy one when and if Final Fantasy 13 comes out for PS3. I know Final Fantasy 12 will be out for the PS2 though.

I've followed the XBox and XBox360 and know that the XBox series always has issues. Even the 360 has issues, numerous, numerous issues. That to me would say which product is better. Who can come out with their hardware console and it does what it should without issues. One of the several issues for the XBox (or the 360, one of the two) had was overheating because of a poorly placed power supply. It didn't get the needed ventilation and frequently would shut down on players. I'd say that's a major hardware issue.

However, back when the PS2 came out there was an rumor where the DVD reader would go bad because people were playing DVD movies with it. Well, those geniuses who said that didn't realize that the games you play in the PS2 were also on DVD media, so it made no difference at all.

Overall, given the performance records; I'd say that the Playstation series is far superior to the XBox series.

The 360 dosen't even support HD DVD currently does it? I've heard that supposedly they are going to release an updated one that does in the future but what about all the early adopters?

The PS2 was a huge hit when it first came out because of the dvd player.(lots of people got it just for that) So if they can successfully convince people that blue ray is enough of an improvement over dvd then I believe it will sell.
To compare two vid formats you haven't seen side by side is kind of pointless. Much less fight about it.

I will say this, the PS2 had more and better exclusives then the xbox and thats why it sold so much more. Its all about the games, and if PS3 has the same amount of awesome exlusive games as the PS2 then it will rule the gaming market. I don't think the vid formats its going to decide which console is better for games.

Now if you want to say who will sell more to the people looking for a nextgen dvd player then the PS3 will still come out on top because will support it out of the box. Plus if people are buying it for a video player they will like the fact they can use it as a web browser, probably a dvr, and who knows what else.

If HD DVD does dominate the market then I'll buy an HD DVD player as well but not untill I see the improvement over dvd and determine for myself if its worth it. Also they better not charge more for the movies.

Its not being shoved down their throat.. its just another feature. And it will be a much appreciated one if blue ray catches on. Just like the dvd player in the ps2 and xbox. Yeah the games are on them but as a feature they let them play movies as well.(MS even madey you buy that stupid $20 xbox remote that you needed to play movies.)

If 360 will never support it out of the box then it will never get those added sales as a multimedia equipment.(I guess to those with a media center pc it still could though) But if you don't play games thats a really expensive tivo.

Well 360 charges $60 for games on dvd so I'm expecting a little hike in the games. But I wait untill games become cheaper anyway to buy them. Unless its a mainly online game.

The point of you not seeing it side by side was that neither have I. So I cant say which is better but neither can you. You can make up an uneducated opinion but its no better then anyone elses.

Well seing as the games will be on blue ray it would be pretty hard to play them without it... thats a pretty dumb point to make. HDTVs will become a lot more commen in the next couple years so the PS3's ability to play the content will be much appreciated. So your saying you pick 360 because you don't like blue ray? Thats pretty dumb when what should come first is the games. But the other features will add incentive for want one.

I'm not making my mind up on the vid format untill I see them myself. And yes I own an hdtv. A nice 50in Sony.

Yeah but a lot of people still don't have high speed internet. So what about them? Maybe sony needed something to hold all the data from the games for those people.

Funny how they've been saying "Blu-Ray is the future" but recently said online distribution is the future instead of a disc format, something Microsoft has been saying for months (which is why the 360 has DVD only).

Nice to know you missed the part of the article that said, "Harrison's comments are merely speculative."

You should read this. Another dark day for XBox users.

XBox and EA screw their users privacy

----------
If you sign up to play EA games through Microsoft’s Xbox Live Service, Microsoft will provide your Xbox Live user account information to EA so that we can establish an EA Online account for you. You need an EA Online account to play EA’s Xbox Live titles. By signing up to play EA's Xbox Live titles, you agree that Microsoft can transfer your user account information to EA.

Information collected will vary depending upon the activity and may include your name, e-mail address, phone number, mobile number, home address, birth date and credit card information. In addition, we may collect demographic information such as gender, zip code, information about your computer, hardware, software, platform, media, Internet IP address and connection, information about online activity such as feature usage, game play statistics and scores, user rankings and click paths and other data that you may provide in surveys or online profiles, for instance. We may combine demographic information with personal information.
----------

Here's a reminder of the rules, XGuNn3rX.

5. Unacceptable Forum or News comments.
While some members feel that post count is important, there are some posts that do not contribute to the community in any way whatsoever. Below is a list of unacceptable posts. If you wish to direct a fellow member to something that has already been posted, please do so in a courteous manner.

• "Old news" or anything similar.
• "(Insert product or brand) sucks" or anything similar.
• "I posted this x days ago!!!" or anything similar.

I would suggest you read our Forum Rules.

Remember, this is a discussion; don't try to instigate flame wars.

Information collected will vary depending upon the activity and may include your name, e-mail address, phone number, mobile number, home address, birth date and credit card information. In addition, we may collect demographic information such as gender, zip code, information about your computer, hardware, software, platform, media, Internet IP address and connection, information about online activity such as feature usage, game play statistics and scores, user rankings and click paths and other data that you may provide in surveys or online profiles, for instance. We may combine demographic information with personal information.
----------

@ XGuNn3rX: I can see some of your points, but I totally disagree with you on a couple things you mentioned.

1. You said that the XBox360 has a 3% failure rate. I'm not sure whom your source is, but I can tell you they are feeding you a load of crap. I have 4 friends who currently own an XBox360, and literally 3 out of 4 of those have failures of some form, most involving overheating (so at least in this case, that's a 75% failure rate). My one friend can't even play his for very long on it's side; it has to be standing up in a wide open space, otherwise it overheats and crashes after 20 minutes. And that is a brand spanking new XBox360 we're talking about, not a refurb. I checked out his fans and they aren't dusty or blocked; it is simply an awful design on Microsoft's part.

The fact that MS can't manage to properly cool a video game system that consumers have to pay $300-400 for is an outright atrocity! I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or two, thousands of people start having their XBox's die from heat. Any system that runs hot all the time will not last long (I build computers, so that much I can tell you with confidence).

2. I don't see how you can consider Sony including a Blu-Ray DVD player in the PS3 a bad thing. The standalone Blu-Ray players cost around $1000, so considering that the PS3 has a dozen times more processing power and costs only half as much, that is actually an awesome bargain! Sony will literally lose money with each PS3 they sell (although they expect to make up that loss by games and Blu-Ray media sold). And as rridgely said, the PS3 games will be on Blu-Ray disks, so that drive will be a necessity. And if you're salty about the fact that the games are on Blu-Ray instead of cheaper, standard DVDs, consider this: games already exist that push the 4.7 GB limit of DVDs, due to huge levels and high quality textures. So most shiny new games will need more space to work with than a DVD can offer. So instead of having to switch disks every time you beat a level, Sony used a high density Blu-Ray DVD that can hold 25-50 GBs, so you won't need to keep track of and switch disks half a dozen times. In my humble opinion, that is a great idea, and in no way a bad thing.

nice post, lokoike.

XGuNn3rX,
no point trying to convice us that the 360 is more worth getting than the PS3. PS3 will boost in sales because they have the next generation video player. it is cheaper to buy the in-built blu-ray player in the PS3 than getting one separately. in about a year or two or at the very most three, DVDs will be outdated. there will still be a few people thats using the DVD since its cheaper and smaller capacity. its just like the SVCD and VCD. they were very popular in the late 90s. and there probably was a discussion saying who wants a DVD and what kind of data would fill up a 4.7GB disc. and my gosh there are people now saying what kind of data would fill up a 54GB disc. 54GB discs arent all that big anymore. at the end of the year 300GB discs called Holographic discs will be out and at the end of next year 1.6TB discs will be out. with HD-DVD discs only reaching 28GBs for this kind of generation is foolish. its way too small.

dont worry about it mate. only time will prove you wrong.

yes, i am very confident that the PS3 will win next gen, theres no doubt about it.

the PS3 graphics are better than the 360. that is main reason im getting the PS3.