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

Forums - Gaming - PS3 is Not More Powerful than Xbox 360, says game Dev!

Squilliam on 09 April 2009

Actually MikeB its pretty clear who the programmers/especially knowledgeable bystanders are. Also its a matter of perspective really, the people who code best for the PS3 don't see Xbox 360 hardware and vice versa.

I haven't seen anything definative yet, so until I do my position on this issue has to remain static.



Tease.

Around the Network
Hyruken on 09 April 2009
Cypher1980 said:
Well this wont end well.

Its like telling a mother that her baby is ugly. Everyone knows, it but no one ever says it.

 

Have not bothered to read all the replies, but i can imagine we have lots of pages of PS3 fanboys running damage control? 



sieanr on 09 April 2009
MikeB said:

@ Squilliam

You know, its strange that developers posting with anonominity who work on both platforms on www.beyond3d.com describe the differences


They aren't all developers and actually the amount of low level programmers posting there form a very small minority (those who are most relevant to this topic). But regardless it's one of the most interesting to read English technical orientated forums.

Virtually all Low level game engine developers agree (including various coders I know personally) the PS3 is fundamentally well more powerful than the 360. This mostly due to the Cell processor and Blu-Ray / default harddrive helps with regard to potential as well.

And this is no shame the 360 was released a year earlier and costs less than a Wii. As time goes on the technical gap between PS3 and 360 exclusives are expected to grow.

I'm sorry, but what experience do you have programming games? Tinkering on a little amiga back in 1988 doesn't count, BTW.

Oh, and do you have any experience working in the industry? Ever touched a dev kit? Ever seen the sourcecode of a modern game?

Its ludicrous that you come off on a high horse against people who say these things when they actually work on these machines day in and day out. So... what expertice gives reason for caring more than a rats ass about anything you say?



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

Xen on 09 April 2009

Egh, and this guy is... who? Carmack already said that the PS3 is slightly more powerful, and Crytek have shown that in real time... so... yeah.



Cheat1011 on 09 April 2009

MikeB is such a blatant fanboy. Yo, I'm playing Left4Dead on my 360, can you do that on your PSTriple? lolz



Around the Network
Truballa on 09 April 2009

wowww at someone that makes guitar hero and rock band great person to ask lmaoo!!!



MAFKKA on 09 April 2009
WereKitten said:

He's saying a few known things: the 360 GPU is specced higher than the PS3's, and the PS3's BluRay has a lower transfer rate than the 360's DVD.
But he's also glossing about the parallel offloading to the SPUs on the PS and being a bit limited in his vision, probably because of the techniques he's most familiar with. Basically the best proof is in existing games.

As an example: the BluRay is slower and still both Uncharted and Killzone 2 managed to stream huge quantities of data with barely noticeable hiccups and loading times.

As for the technicalities: for what I know the two GPUs have the same fillrate (4 billions pixels/sec) until you put multisampling AA in the picture. Then the 360 pulls ahead because it's implemented in hardware, but you can do the same on the PS3 using shaders and the SPUs. Games such as Killzone 2 and Uncharted certainly implemented multisampling AA in such ways.

As for the shaders he's only right about the fillrate on the 360 being higher if it can use more than 32 out of 48 pipelines (unified architecture). That means less vertex shaders, of course, whereas the PS3 has a fixed fill rate and a fixed vertex rate. You can dynamically adapt better on the 360, but the advantage is far from the 2x factor in most cases. And again, he is not thinking about using the SPUs for both vertex and pixel shading. Again look at good examples among PS3 exclusives.

In the end he has given his informed opinion, but he comes off as a bit entrenched in a PC-centric (CPU(s)+GPU) view of what makes a powerful machine for games development, thus I understand that he finds the 360 more powerful.

+1

 



MAFKKA on 09 April 2009

His statment is a bit like blaming the controller when you're dying playing video games. Its not the controllers fault...



Squilliam on 09 April 2009
MAFKKA said:
His statment is a bit like blaming the controller when you're dying playing video games. Its not the controllers fault...

It is if the controllers broken.

 



Tease.

haxxiy on 09 April 2009
Cheat1011 said:

MikeB is such a blatant fanboy. Yo, I'm playing Left4Dead on my 360, can you do that on your PSTriple? lolz

 

Can you play Resistance or KZ2 on your X360? You can't, I'm afraid to say. In the other side, any videocard nowadays runs L4D on the PC better than the X360. You post failed while MikeB explained everything with reasonable logic and backed-up by reliable links. Please don't insult this site with such a piece of fail.