TheRealMafoo said:
The 360 GPU is faster then the PS3 GPU, but the PS3 can supplement the GPU with its CPU far better then the 360 can. In the end, this means the PS3 can produce better graphics. You want real world examples? The best looking console games every created, are:
People keeps saying the 360 games can look as good as PS3 games, yet none ever have looked as good as the best looking PS3 games. Why would that be, do you think? Comparing only GPU's is like saying my car can go faster then your car, because I have higher rated tires. |
XENOS is better than RSX, slightly.
CELL does run more floating point operations per second than Xenon, actually its much more.
XENON can handle more instructions per second than CELL, about double.
XENON can help easily XENOS because of architechture, they both can access the same memory.
CELL can't help RSX easily,
they both have different memories and therefore all graphical stuff you do with CELL must be first done in CELLs memory and then transfer to RSXs memory. It gets even more compilicated, because CELL can't really read RSX:s memory. Well it can, but its painfully slow so you really can't count on it. Of course RSX can send stuff into CELLs memory, but sending and processing that stuff can easily take more time than the alternative where RSX would do the stuff alone. Also can you really sacrifice any of CELLs memory for that job?
Both don't even have OoOE, means they can't really handle complicate programs, if you throw them some code with a lots of paths they render slower than 4 years old mediocre home computers.
----
Graphically, X360 wins
Number of instructions per second , X360 wins
Number of floating point operations per second, PS3 wins
----
Well, thats not all because...
Game graphics = artists+(engine capabilities)*(platform capabilities)
@MikeB
Wtf are you talking about? :D
(Yeah, I am dev who is stuck with PC, because no money for devkits. Actually I wouldn't even want to do anything for any console. Way too restricted platform.)
