MikeB said: @ rocketpig Um... No. The 360 has a better video card, more flexible RAM usage, and the tri-core CPU is vastly more powerful than the PS3's CPU minus the SPEs. What on Earth gave you that idea? The RSX objectively provides more raw perfomance, so it's a matter of perspective. AFAIK the full RSX specs haven't even been published, so it's mostly just guesswork. I do however agree developers had more time to get to know the Xenos and the XBox 360 in general, which is an advantage. However on the other hand the combination Cell + RSX is extremely powerful, how it's all able to work together is greater than merely a summ of individual parts.

No, it doesn't. Actually the 360's GPU is more next-gen than the PS3's, due to the unified pipeline design. In case you haven't noticed, ATI did a first there, and now Nvidia is following them. The peak performance in non-unified pipelines is basically irrelevant, so comparing peak performance numbers is not enough.

I had a post explaining this is more detail, I'll dig it up and edit this post later with a link to it.

EDIT - here is the thread, look at my posts in pages 2 and 3 if you're interested in comparing the GPUs:

http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=2105

 

dallas said: I didnt say that either of you started anything, i'm just asking both of you to quit arguing before somebody gets banned as this thread has already been given a warning by ck. Why would you want other people to get headaches from your squabbles?

If you insist... Don't get me started on ckmlb's warning, it was clearly due to him misinterpreting Legend11's post, so it's basically a non-issue here.

 

MikeB said: ...AFAIK the full RSX specs haven't even been published, so it's mostly just guesswork...

Ahem... the RSX is an nVidia G71 GPU... you can Google its specs pretty easy, just switch the 256 bit  RAM interface to 128 bit and change the core and memory clocks to 550 and 1300 Mhz respectively... with simple math you can know what the RSX can do in the technical aspect

Sony developed the Cell for exactly the same reason they developed the "Emotion Engine" for the PS2:

Marketability.

Sony got a fantastic reaction from their advertisements of the Emotion Engine, people gobbled it right up.  It didn't matter that the design was atrocious or that the Xbox and Gamecube were more capable, this thing had specs out the wazoo and a sweet marketing name.  Its success was all but guaranteed.  So they figured, go for the 1-2 combo punch, Cell and Blu-ray, two more sweet technologies with marketable names.  Unfortunately, they just weren't able to offer these technologies to customers at a reasonable price, and the marketing wasn't enough to get people salivating (not enough people, anyway).

The sad thing is, the Cell+RSX is actually a much better design than the EE+GS of the PS2.  If Sony could have made it more affordable, if they weren't trying to capture the high-def movie market at the same time, a lot more gamers could be enjoying the benefits of this design (and a lot more developers would be supporting it).

@ NJ5

IMO the peak perfomance difference is quite significant as well as the fact that the Cell can feed the RSX about twice as much data than the Xenon can feed Xenos.

Note that I am not stating the Xenos may not have any technologically advantages in comparison to the RSX, but in any comparison the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

@ fazz

Yes, the GPU is similar. But that doesn't prove to be a significant XBox 360 advantage. Judging from launch games which don't use the SPEs like Genji 2 or Oblivion for the PS3 (which looks better, but isn't believed to use the SPEs), does not prove the XBox 360 to be more powerful. Without tapping into the power of the SPEs the PS3 can already roughly match the XBox 360 in terms of visuals.

For example IMO Ratchet and Clank Future's Pixar movie like graphics, also demonstrates the PS3 can do anything the XBox 360 can do graphically and go beyond that.

Legend11 said: Sorry for anyone I may have offended with this thread.. I guess the whole GTAIV thing got to me and especially the article about it might be because of the PS3 (even though we'll likely never know and it may not be because of it). Maybe it should be closed so it doesn't create and hard feelings :/

 No Legend you don't need to be apologetic. I have read your post and then re-read it. Cklmb owes you the apology. Here is the line he was referring to..."It seems to me that Sony was just using their Playstation brand to push other technologies that weren't needed in a gaming console and considered many Playstation fans as mindless drones that would buy any console the company released with the Playstation logo." It is clear that you were saying that Sony assumed that their fans were mindless drones that would buy anything. 

Maverick Hunter Z said: Stating sony's perception of its fans is not insulting the fans themselves Ckmlb. No need for a warning and you know it. How come we never see this kind of reaction out of you when Killzone3, Leo-J, PS3Owner or AIIAII attack MS or Ninty fans? Half the time I see you joining the feeding frenzy. Aren't Mods at least suppossed to pretend to be unbiased, especially ones who brag up owning all three consoles as proof of their purity? On Topic: Blu-Ray was a technology they were going to try and push anyway, and seeing how it affected their sales I'm sure most Sony haters are glad they did include it in the PS3. The Cell Processor, who knows, I'm sure they had their reasons but when you're trying to steel the thunder of MS, whose market strategy isn't that tricky (leaving them more vulnerable in the long term even if they do steel MS's thunder), a little snake oil doesn't hurt for bragging rights either.

When in tha "F" have I attacked a nintendo or microsoft fan? And ckmlb isnt biased at all so dont talk crud.

MikeB said: @ NJ5 IMO the peak perfomance difference is quite significant as well as the fact that the Cell can feed the RSX about twice as much data than the Xenon can feed Xenos.

Talking about apples and oranges in the same sentence only confuses people. We're comparing GPU vs GPU. The peak performance argument I gave is significant because the PS3's GPU can't reach it for practical applications (i.e. one part of the processing needs to wait for the other due to separate pipelines, while the 360's GPU can achieve it due to unified pipelining).

And I don't see your point of discussing peak performance of the GPU when talking about GPU/Cell cooperation since they're two totally distinct subjects.

The GPU in the Xbox 360 was very revolutionary and relevant in terms of GPUs. It was the first time that someone managed to implement the superior idea of unified pipelines in a good manner. Here you have a Nvidia engineer basically praising ATI's achievement and announcing Nvidia would follow their steps:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20060418170458.html

And a link explaining the Xbox 360's GPU awesomeness:

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2005q2/xbox360-gpu/index.x?pg=1 

Yes, the Xbox 360 is also a very interesting machine, despite the fact it came out a year earlier than the other two current-gen consoles. 

 

Killzone3 said: Ha! I love how the mass sales increase due to the price cut in the USA has spurred xbox fans back to posting fud. Buddy Rockstar was strugling with the 360 version due to the constraints of DVD, they said so months ago. And aren't xbot the worst drones ? 11 times your hardware breaks but ITS... O K

The last part was extreemly fanboyish, but the first and secound part are true.