By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Debunking the myth that the PS3 > Xbox360, The real work proves Xbox > PS3

sc94597 on 23 July 2008
Squilliam said:
BengaBenga said:
Interesting, can you make something like this for Wii>>>Xbox/PS2/GC?

I can try - there isn't as much information about the Wii but im sure if I asked enough questions of the right people I could get an answer for you.

Specifically I guess the main issue is Wii GPU/CPU vs Xbox1 from a relative performance standpoint as the Xbox1 was considered the best performing architecture of the last generation, right?

Well the Broadway(Wii cpu) is  based off of a PPC 750Cl, while the original xbox's cpu was a hybrid of a Celeron, and  Pentium 3. (It had the same FSB and Clock speeds of pentiums, but cache of a celeron). The biggest difference between the xbox and the gamecube was the amount of ram, the gamecube used 1Tsram as its main ram which caused for lower bandwidth and it also used it as a cache which upped the bandwidth, and the Xbox had programmable shaders while the gamecube had a TeV unit that allowed for the same shaders. Everything else was about the same in performance. If the gamecube had more ram, I would think of it as the most powerful last gen, but I think of it right now as being right behind or equal to the original xbox. The Wii has more ram than the original xbox, and some of that ram is Gddr3 and has an overall less latency.

Wii vs GC - is about how much the relative performance has changed given the similarities of the architecture as far as I can tell is what you want?

While the architectures are based off the same design they are pretty different(what I gather so far with the limited information).  I need more information on this. Oh and there is also the clock speed differences.

Wii vs PS2 - Is because of the frequency of ports between the two platforms, you want to know how much games are held back by these ports?

It won't be easy, but i'll do it - and keep you posted if you want as I aquire my supporting information.

I already started this, but I just want some more information until I do finish it. I'm sure I could find some more.

 



Around the Network
Squilliam on 23 July 2008
Hyams said:
So, you compare two games in detail, both of which happen to be better on the 360. This demonstrates nothing apart from the fact that those two devs are better with the 360 than they are with the PS3. All this really reveals to me is your bias: why didn't you compare the versions of, say, COD4 or Burnout Paradise? If I had more data for CODIV I would have. I had the most data on those two games, so I compared them. But really, does how GTAIV run prove that the developers from rockstar are incompetent? So you'd perfer to call them morons for not being able to deliver as much performance on the PS3 version as the Xbox360 version? .

And of course, even comparing multiplatform titles in the first place really isn't the best way to compare the comparative strength of the two consoles, as the different strengths and weaknesses of each console are different, meaning sacrifices have to be made in most multiplatform titles. Because of this, multiplatform titles don't represent the best of what a console can do. GTAIV was coded by a seperate team on the PS3 - Thats as close to using the comparitive strengths of the PS3 any developer can get in a multiplatform game. Furthermore - its extremely difficult to get a fair and balanced comparison between different exclusives as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Of course, all of this is meaningless as you've redefined the strength of the console to incorporate how easy it is to program for, putting the PS3 at an immediate disadvantage. Of course, this also means that the Wii’s technology is superior to the PS3’s in some respects too, if you carry the logic over. Its not just how easy it is to program for - The Xbox1 is easier than the Xbox360 because of the OOOE in the X86 CPU, but if the underlying architecture like the Memory, GPU and CPU all perform at a higher level then you will get a better result from your games. But yes, an easy console to develop for is relevant to discussion because developers in the real world have a fairly fixed budget of time and money in which to deliver a game in.

The problem with including ease of development in your assessment is that this value fluctuates, from dev to dev and over time. Insomniac, for example, don't appear to have any trouble developing games for the PS3, whereas some other devs do. And we've seen how devs have been getting better at using the PS3 (just compare the quality of multiplatform titles at the beginning of its life to now). Because this isn't a definite, in-the-stone number - like something like RAM is - you can't really include it in your assessment. After all, a year or two down the line and we may find that devs find developing for the PS3 just as easy as developing for the 360. It does help that Sony will refuse to allow a developer to release games that are not up to par in comparison between the Xbox360 and PS3 versions. So a developer with a weak PS3 version can do a combination of Delay both, delay the PS3 version, and Gimp the Xbox360 version to make the PS3 version better. Lastly have you heard of the 80/20 rule? 80% of your results will come from 20% of your effort, if we haven't seen the performance by now then we may never see it.Most Developers aren't going to be spending 3+ years and a huge budget if they aren't going to get the returns on that investment. Only 1st parties can do things like that.

No, the best way to figure out which console is strongest is to compare exclusive games, as they'll present the best of what the console is capable of. But as you quite rightly pointed out, that is very hard to currently do. There isn't a big enough difference in the quality of the exclusive games, making it very hard to judge, especially against the backdrop of different art styles. Well the best bet for comparison is probably Insomniac and Epic on their respective GeoW2 and RFOM2 games. They have similar development time, they are both considered masters of engine development and the art style isn't too far off from each other. But we won't know until November or December at the latest how they really compare. But in saying that there are still huge issues with making such a comparison and I'll leave it to the unbiased minds of the people in Beyond3d - they are some of the best bets for that.

In the end, you’ve demonstrated nothing.

 

 



Tease.

davygee on 23 July 2008

You base your findings on games that were developed for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PS3.

We are now in the process of seeing games being initially developed on the PS3 and then ported to the 360, we have seen this happening with Burnout Paradise. The PS3 version is better. And there are a few games in development at the moment that are being developed primarily on the PS3, being Dead Space amongst others.

Once these games come out, then we can make proper comparisons. Also what about a few games that are and have come out later and are better on the PS3 like Oblivion and going by reports Bioshock.



Prediction (June 12th 2017)

Permanent pricedrop for both PS4 Slim and PS4 Pro in October.

PS4 Slim $249 (October 2017)

PS4 Pro $349 (October 2017)

perpride on 23 July 2008

This thread makes no sense whatsoever.



iron_megalith on 23 July 2008

Thanks squilliam! now I'm F*ing sure I'll sell my PS3!



Around the Network
SnesTea on 23 July 2008

This thread makes my head hurt.



Oyvoyvoyv on 23 July 2008
Fei-Hung said:
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.

Do you realise how pointless this thread is? :s This topic comes up again and again and again in different forms and shapes. Same thing being argued slightly differently. VG Charts is starting to become a fanboy haven. Aren't the mods meant to control how many times a topic is repeated :s

 

But he did something most other people havent - presented facts.

 

 

 



http://www.vgchartz.com/games/userreviewdisp.php?id=261

That is VGChartz LONGEST review. And it's NOT Cute Kitten DS

NNN2004 on 23 July 2008
Phendrana said:
Do you think the 360's year head start may have something to do with this? Games always get better as consoles progress through their life cycle. Just a thought. I really have no idea.

 

 like always sony fans say that as argument ... ok u want a proof that ur mistaken .. i will give u one ... ps3 & Wii launch at the same year no one year head start no nothing, both have new technologies and the developers need a time to used to it  .... then why the hell Wii have more games  & no delays ?? why the hell Wii make 4 or 5 games with the same time sony take it to make one game ??!! wake up Fan .. its not an argument  anymore.



Munkeh111 on 23 July 2008
disolitude said:
Anyone saying "compare exclusives"...How does one do this?

Also, if Uncharted all of a sudden got a 360 port, its not longer comparable in terms of graphics? Give me a break...

 

Compare exclusives because they were developed for the system meant to get the most out of a console that is possible



Squilliam on 23 July 2008
Phendrana said:
Do you think the 360's year head start may have something to do with this? Games always get better as consoles progress through their life cycle. Just a thought. I really have no idea.

 

 Games get better for several different reasons. *Just quickly*

Developers can learn to gain the most visual impact by expending resources where they count the most.

I.E If we sacrifice One unit of A and get two units of B we get a better looking game. The depth of field effect is a prime example - they sacfrifice far off detail for close in detail where people are paying closer attention.

They can also take advantage of better tools and techniques so that they can get the game out faster while giving them more time to tweak the little things.

I.E The engine is already 80% right for this game, they can spend 3000 man hours working on their streaming engine so they can get better texture effects.

But by now the games companies have had 3-4 years working with both Consoles so 85% of what if possible (Just roughly) on both consoles has been done already or will be done in games coming out in the next 6 months.

 



Tease.