| Squilliam said: The Cell as a CPU considered in its own right is more powerful than the Xbox360s Xenon, there can be no denying that simple fact. The point of this thread is to prove the Xbox360s architecture as taken as a whole – CPU + GPU + Memory and architecture along with its programming environment and tools is simply superior to the PS3 and its architecture.
The Xbox360 provides varying levels of extra AA, resolution and superior frame-rates over the equivalent PS3 versions. This shows at a base level, that often when the PS3 and Xbox360 games are created, there is at least a little extra performance left over for the Xbox360 to create a slightly better game experience by this metric.
To appreciate the key differences between the architectures we should look at the games which we have the most data on, GTAIV and Race-Driver: GRID.
The Xbox360 renders 28million pixels per second compared to 19.5 million on the PS3 when comparing them with GTAIV. This is a game that runs sophisticated AI code in an open world environment with the PS3 and the Xbox360 versions being coded by separate teams to extract the best performance possible from both architectures. In this game the Xbox360 code runs faster than the PS3 version while maintaining a higher AA level and resolution. This shows in my opinion that the Xbox360 architecture benefits from the greater available ram and superior GPU more than the PS3 benefits from its HDD install and Cell CPU.
Race Driver: Grid is another case where the Xbox360 is able to produce both better visuals without screen tearing and a higher AA level while delivering a superior frame rate. This game did not have the high budget of the GTAIV example, and it certainly does not have the budget of Gran Turismo 5. It does show that when given a set budget for a game, developers giving their best efforts can produce a better result on the Xbox360.
This isn’t about theoretical performance, this is a direct comparison between the architectures and the only fair way to compare the differences between the Xbox360 and the PS3 is to remove all other variables bar the ones being measured. Exclusive games cannot be used to determine the worth of an architecture because there is no control and such comparisons just boil down to subjective opinions. I excluded Blu-Ray vs DVD-ROMs because the optical medium does not effect how well games run. From the ease of programming to the more accessible CPU the Xbox360 is truely the superior architecture for creating games. |
I don't even have to read this long senseless babble to tell you that you're wrong. XBOX 360 can not compare to the capabilities of the PS3. You can state all these simple facts, but read any interview from any 3rd party developer in the business - they'll tell you the PS3 is better - and they'll add two words to it so it really hits home - by far. What you don't realize is that a console is not simply comprised of hardware, its how that hardware works together. And judging by one simple issue that happened millions of times - RROD - it's obvious that the XBOX 360 tried to overcompensate for what they knew would be a superior machine in the PS3, and it massively backfired. W/E tho, try and convince yourself that you're machine is worth half of what you paid for it. And when you see the next XBOX come out with near identical/slightly improved hardware than the PS3, you'll understand what I mean.
And to answer NNN - the reason it takes the PS3 as much time to make 1 game as it does the Wii to make 4 or 5 is simple. REALLY simple. The Wii is last-gen technology with next-gen controls. People have been creating games for this type of platform and capabilites for years. On top of which, the Wii is built for the casual gamer. Casual games take a lot less effort than a game aimed at the hardcore audience regardless of what platform. I also like how you only chose to pick on the PS3 here when Microsoft takes just as long to put out the same quality of games that you're taking shots at on the PS3.
