| reptile168 said: graphically, 360 is more capable than PS3. But the PS3 processor is better. In a way, 360 can display more details and have better framerate thanks to 512MB memory, while PS3 games will have more advanced CPU and can do more realistic physics |
I think this misconception will not last for very long at this point (mostly regards 360 to PS3 ports or game engines which are in need for redesign). Both GPUs are different, both providing their advantages and very different strongpoints (one of which for the RSX is to be designed to take good advantage of Cell pre- and post-processing), there are certain conditions where the Xenos provides certain framerate advantages (at least without significant PS3 specific adaptations and redesign).
The PS3 also has 512 MB of memory, but two seperate memory pools to take advantage of simultaneously by the GPU if needed. The XDR Ram is much faster than the PS3's GPU memory as well as the 360 shared memory, however this is mostly of benefit to the Cell processor (which can be heavily involved in the graphics processing), double the bandwidth by feeding the GPU from both memory pools would be more relevant from a more direct perspective (on the 360 only the CPU or GPU can access the main memory at a time).
From the grand perspective the PS3 has a big memory advantage, this due to a default harddrive (for feeding streamed data). Blu-Ray disc helps in this regard as well, being predictable and providing 6-7 times the available space for an uncompromised amount of texture and audio data, so in terms of quality/varierty. But does anyone remember how much memory the NeoGeo had compared to PCs and other consoles of the time?
