Sony cry: Wii is Just "Impulse Purchase"

[sieanr]

The 360 GPU has two separate dies. The main die, where all the real processing is done, is 232 million transistors. By comparison, the PS3's GPU is at approx. 300mil, and those have the burden of handling AA. The 360 has the advantage of offloading all of that onto the EDRAM, which gives it 4x AA with no real performance hit. The fact that the PS3 has no transistors dedicated to AA is a disadvantage, since you have to steal power to pull it off. This is why many PS3 games lack AA or look jaggier than their 260 counterparts. It's not like "25%" of the 360's GPU is dedicated to AA, it's more like it has an extra part, and this is an awful analogy I can't help but make - it's like adding a turbocharger to an engine. Clock speed is a stupid comparison, and one where you severely distort the facts. The 360's GPU is at 500mhz, whereas the PS3 is at 550mhz(it was originally 600). That's at 10% clock difference, not 30% higher. I guess walgreens taught you a thing or two about numbers, like your skills at a register. The thing your forgetting is the Xenos is a far more advanced, modern and efficient design, with features like unified shaders that the RSX lacks. There is a good reason why the people at beyond 3d swoon over the 360's GPU whereas they're relatively apathetic toward RSX. But I'm sure non of this will sway your opinion, since the PS2 is faster in every regard to the Gamecube. It's so much faster that it's CPU is 294MHZ vs the GC's 485MHZ CPU. That's right, the PS2 is so much faster than the GC that it's CPU is slower. Same with the PS2's GPU, or it's smaller amount of ram, or lower fill rate, or real world poly performance. And go back and look at FF10 again, even screen shots online. You likely think the game looks far better than it really does, and it's something I've done in the past. Super Mario Sunshine pushed far more polygons than FF10 or 12 ever did, and had fake depth of field to boot. Also, RE4 started development as a PS2 title.