By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dno on 01 May 2008
Edit Thread
TheBigFatJ said:
Dno said:

Buffer or whatever your saying aside, the difference is small but its there. The ps3 is stonger accoording to every dev out there. And thats pretty much it. It can hold a lot more onscreen, bigger disk space, cell and seven processers (xbox only has 3 and tops DVD9 vs blu-ray up to 50 gigs so far.)

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better. Since it takes more power to run in 1080p native then 720p and then upscale.


No, that's not true.  The PS3 doesn't have "seven processors", it has a PPU and seven SPUs.  In reality, for most game engines, the SPU/SPEs are not the bottleneck, the PPU is.  That's where the Xbox has an advantage.

But you can use the SPUs to make up for the lack of as much general processing power as the Xbox has, to a large extent, and they can even do some things faster. 

ps3 has more high resolution games that do NOT upscale but are native 1080p. so i would guess that since xbox only has 3 native 1080p games and ps3 about 25 that ps3s frame rates are much better.

This part just isn't true.  You're wrong. 

The bottom line is this: while the PS3 and Xbox 360 are pathetically weak compared to even mid range modern computers, they're fairly evenly matched assuming a dev is willing to take time to rewrite parts of his engine to rely primarily on the SPEs.


Facts? links please?

Cause we all know most devs say the ps3 is stronger .... latest would be the ghost busters devs...... i want  links or facts on them being evenly matched as you are the 1st ive heard say this...