Preface
About the author:
I may not be what you would call the more traditional console gamer as for example I skipped the previous generation of consoles, although as a kid I owned various consoles ranging from the Coleco Vision to the Nintendo 64. But apart from very fond memories of Mario games my most vivid gaming days were actually on the c64, Amiga and much later on the PC starting with games like Quake and Half-Life. I have always been interested in technology in general though and over the years I have been to dozens to tech events, often writing well read show reports and also writing operating system and software development related tutorials, interviews and reviews.
Next to our PCs, me and my girlfriend both own a NDS and currently a Playstation 3. We sometimes have fun with friends playing on the Nintendo Wii and we sold a XBox 360 after experiencing technical and support problems. The main reason why I am now interested in the PS3 (for many years now) despite having never owned a PS2 is mainly due to the Cell processor and the way it’s implemented in the PS3.
Excluding the Wii from this comparison
I am going to exclude the Nintendo Wii from this technical comparison as in terms of specifications and gaming strong points it's such a different entertainment device. To sum up the Wii, a powerful 32-bit console if the console would've been released half a decade ago, from a modern design perspective it's severely underpowered thus allowing Nintendo to significantly reduce their costs and pricing, so the console can be of interest to a wider audience who do not want to spend too much on an entertainment device. The console’s biggest plus seems to be the console's Wii-mote input device and games that take advantage of this great technology! For example Wii Sports and Wii Play are easy to get into party games, fun little games that will interest traditional gamers and probably more importantly your girlfriend, mom and maybe even your grandparents!
However with regard to the hardcore gamer who like to play creepy games, thrilling games, first person shooters or enjoy movie-like gaming experiences the higher-end consoles or maybe a PC would probably be a better fit as they allow for by far more complex games combined with much higher quality sound and graphics. If you can afford it, owning a Wii next to a high end console or PC can be a great option considering how different the Wii is compared to these other solutions!
Wishful thinking: Although this will probably never be supported in an official manner the PS3 is powerful enough to fully emulate the Nintendo Wii and upscale the games for HDTVs, of course a Wii-mote driver is already available under PS3 Linux.
Why to compare the PS3 with the XBox 360?
Despite some crucial differences the consoles are pretty much alike as they seem to target the most overlapping consumer audience.
Initially I have been trying to discuss the PS3 on various tech forums to enhance my knowledge of the device (the discussions included thousands of comments from people with very different backgrounds holding very different perspectives), however mostly XBox 360 fans have been proven to be the most responsive by providing (often incomplete, wrong or misleading) data. By investigating all the (wrong and correct) claims, I actually learned a lot about both platforms and I would like to address some common misconceptions, untruths and hope to see more valuable input. Corrections counter-arguments and additional input is most welcome!
Honestly I am a little fed up by all the (often faked) negativity surrounding the wonderful device the PS3 is and I hope this article may help fellow supporters to combat those who discredit or ridicule any enthusiasm for the platform.
Confusion
There's a lot of confusion regarding the PS3's potential, often fueled by totally contradicting developer perspectives, with the developers dependent on 3rd party middleware solutions and those who build their game engines for the platform from ground up themselves. Personally I think the perspectives from those who are designing their own game engines from ground up for the PS3, such as Insomniac Games (Ratchet and Clack Future), Naughty Dog (Uncharted) and Guerrilla Games (Killzone 2) are more relevant to many issues as the perspectives of middleware using developing companies would be very much dependent on the functionalities and features provided to them by the multi-platform middleware designers (the PS3 is new technology, but even in due time with added SPE support, cross platform middleware solutions will never become truly optimal compared to fully dedicated solutions for the PS3).
IMO especially US media have been proven to be severely biased with regard to pointing to short term Xbox 360 benefits, this while neglecting the PS3 long term benefits. I think most consumers look at consoles from at least a 5 year perspective. I hope this posting will help by aiding to level out the negativity surrounding the PS3 and hyping of the Xbox 360 from a more objective perspective.
Has the PS3 already been written off as a lost cause sales wise?
There’s a lot of propaganda regarding PS3 sales, but if the PS3 is dead the Xbox 360 was more dead for the same period of availability, as globally the PS3 is outperforming the Xbox 360 in sales compared to last year. How come we heard so many “Xbox 360 is selling amazingly well” stories last year and today we read “The PS3 is Doomed stories”? Well, IMO that’s just media bias and lacks any foundation as we are still very early in this “console war” with even within the US (NPD survey June 2007, US seeing the bulk of Xbox sales) more people are playing on a PS2 than people are playing on Xbox, Xbox 360, GameCube, Wii and PS3 *all* combined!
The PS3 is outperforming the Xbox 360 sales wise despite:
1) A higher entry price (which could fall dramatically over time, for instance with the release of a cheaper slim-line product)
2) Being released in a more competitive market. The PS3 launched after a one year headstart for the Xbox 360 and launched around the same time as the much hyped Wii.
3) The PS2 is still alive and selling well, unlike the GameCube and original Xbox which have both been retired.
So the demise of the PS3 platform is greatly exaggerated and anything could happen in the years ahead of us, even PS3 dominance cannot be preemptively dismissed and the PS3 eventually outselling the PS2 is still a possibility as well, as for example the PS2 launched with lower specs for its time at a cheaper entry price, so the PS3 may well last longer than the PS2 will. With increasingly capable consumer electronics (TVs and audio equipment), high definition and 7.1 audio output for games and movies will become more important in the years ahead of us.
Hardware Comparison
The exterior of the console:
Both devices look cool on their own merits. IMO the PS3 looks a little sleeker, shiny with touch sensitive buttons, more connection / peripheral options and a slot loading Blu-Ray disc drive. The slot drive also seems like a better solution especially considering the many reports of people having problems with the Xbox 360 drive tray.
Both devices you probably won’t take with you to a friend’s house, unlike the Wii. The PS3 is too heavy and the Xbox 360 also comes with a huge and heavy external power adapter, which BTW is often difficult to hide out of view due to the rigid power cords. I think the PS3 and the Xbox 360 Elite’s black color will often better suit the looks of most media cabinets as they are often black and black goes well with almost anything (hence most consumer electronics equipment is usually black).
Opinion: IMO the PS3 wins this point regarding looks and design but this is greatly dependent on personal preferences and taste.
General build quality and console sturdiness
Ever since the Xbox 360 launched in 2005 forums have been filled with issues and complaints regarding various forms of system failures, disc scratching issues and other hardware related issues. Some retailers put the failure rate of the console at over 30% per year and if correct this is quite extraordinary for a game system or any other type of consumer electronics.
On the other hand for the PS3 there have been remarkably few reports regarding hardware issues in comparison. Sony Europe claims the PS3 to be their sturdiest game console so far, claiming a failure rate of about 0.2%, which is a lot better than the 2% failure rate for the PS2 (which in the past has been plagued by less severe issues like dusty lenses and loose screws due to drive vibrations, causing DVD read errors).
Clearly the PS3 wins it with regard to console sturdiness. Also many people seem to be far more happy with the support provided by Sony regarding the PS3 compared to the support given by Microsoft for the Xbox 360 (be this due dissatisfaction from faulty replacements being sent-out to consumers, repeat failures, non-native speaking support staff or simply due to the fact that Xbox 360 support has more work on their hands)
The CPU (Central Processing Unit, often considered to be the heart of a computer or similar device as it plays a central role in executing software)
PS3: Cell processor - Containing 1 PPE processor (By itself this can act as a full standalone central processor, but is also central for regulating the SPE processors if they are used), Altivec Unit and 8 SPE processor Units (of which 1 is disabled, available only as a backup if something happened to one of the other SPEs).
The Cell is different compared to traditional multi-core CPUs, as each SPE can be (temporary) isolated from the rest of the system each having access to small amounts yet extremely fast dedicated local memory storages. The Cell has a very high internal bandwidth to allow the design to be effective (over 300 GB/s).
Proven performance test: Over 200 GFlops for 8 SPEs while taking out of account the performance provided by the PPE, so remove the GFlops for one SPE which isn't used and add some GFlops for the PPE, which gives the Cell processor over 200 GFlops performance. Note that one SPE at this point is reserved for the OS, this may well take some workload off the PPE for current and future OS functionality as compared to the XBox 360 or allow for more OS functionality and multi-tasking abilities. Currently this isn't really a big deal as developers are yet to scratch the surface of the performance potential of the 6 other available SPEs.
XBox 360: Xenon processor - a triple core CPU combined with 3 VMX128 altivec units. Very much like traditional mutli-core CPUs, but like the Cell's PPE offers a 64-bit PowerPC architecture.
According to IBM: Peak performance, 77 GFlops. Source: Forbes
Conclusion: the PS3's CPU is about 2.5-3 times faster than the Xenon processor. The Cell’s real world performance potential is well above the Xenon’s theoretical peak performance.
Discussion: Often it is claimed the Xenon's peak performance is actually 115.2 GFlops, this appears to be a very common misconception. A friend provides the following explanation:
"The 115.2 figure is the theoretical peak if you include non-arithmetic instructions such as permute. These are not normally included in *any* measure of FLOPs."
"If you want to count non-arithemitic peak figures, the usable Cell components in the PS3 will get 268 Gflops (6 SPEs + PPE) - over twice that of the 360."
Graphics chips
Full and definite data regarding both chips AFAIK are covered by NDA.
PS3 - RSX vs 360 - Xenos
Probably the most impressive part of the XBox 360 is the ATi’s Xenos GPU.
However both chips offer their own benefits, the transistor count is comparable:
"Xenos and RSX have similar transistor counts except Xenos uses almost a third of it for EDRAM (and only 2 thirds for logic) whereas RSX forgoes EDRAM to add that extra third of logic and shader power." (Source nAo, Ninja Theory).
The additional EDRAM inside the Xbox 360 is often cited as a major advantage. But according to for example memory experts Rambus the PS3 still has the Edge as the PS3 has a dedicated bus for its GPU while the 360’s GPU needs to share the bus with the CPU when accessing the RAM.
The RSX is considered to be faster, but the Xenos is often considered to be more flexible. In the PS3 there’s the advantage of the Cell processor being well suited to take workload off the GPU, allowing the GPU to concentrate on other things. Despite the Cell processor being quite capable at handling much graphics related workload IMO it was the right decision by Sony the add a high performance dedicated GPU, also this simplifies porting cross platform games as game engines must be greatly adapted to take advantage of the Cell’s SPEs.
Conclusion: Non. Apparently both chips have their own strengths and weaknesses, the RSX has the advantage of the Cell as its additional aid and higher bandwidths throughout the system, but this mainly comes into play from a larger perspective. Looking solely at the GPU as a standalone product, ATi did a remarkable job designing a GPU as impressive as this at such a cheap cost one year ahead of the PS3’s release! (Sadly the Xenos also causes many Xbox 360s to overheat, due to bad Xbox 360 design by Microsoft)
Memory and system bandwidths
A great specced CPU and GPU would be useless if the system has to deal with slow memory and not enough bandwidth to move around the data quickly enough.
The PS3 has 2 types of main memory, very fast 256 MB XDR DRAM with a clock rate of 3.2 GHz and slower 256 MB GDDR3 memory clocked at 700 MHz.
The Xbox 360 has a unified memory model with 512 MB GDDR3 running at 700 Mhz, similar to some cheaper boards or many Mini-ITX PC motherboards.
Like is the case on the PC, a unified memory model at a lower clock speed is a significant disadvantage. On the PS3 unlike is the case on ordinary PC motherboards both the CPU and GPU can access the faster system memory.
In terms of bandwidth the following pictures demonstrate how data can be distributed across both console designs:
PS3
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060426/3dhd15.jpg
Rambus: “The Cell BE employs an architectural strategy of extremely high-bandwidth access to main memory in lieu of large on-chip memory cache. The XDR memory controller interface (XIO) on the Cell BE is 72 bits-wide and is capable of operating at 3.2Ghz data rates providing 25.6 GB/s of total memory bandwidth. Four 512Mb XDR DRAM devices provide for 256MB of high-performance main memory for the Cell BE."
"The Cell BE employs a similar strategy of extremely high-bandwidth connections to companion chips to achieve unprecedented levels of performance. Rambus’ FlexIO processor bus provides the high-bandwidth connectivity between the Cell BE and the RSX and South Bridge chips. In the PLAYSTATION®3, the FlexIO interfaces connecting the Cell BE to its companion chips provide an aggregate bandwidth of 40 GB/s."
Xbox 360
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/X360bandwidthdiagram.jpg
The 360 has eDRAM which lowers bandwidth required from main RAM, partially in high resolution modes the eDRAM is too small and the GPU will have to swap tiles back to main RAM. The 360 has a bottleneck because it's using a front side bus rather than a dedicated memory bus.
Conclusion: The PS3 design seems less bottlenecked when compared to the Xbox 360’s design.
PS3 Blu-Ray drive vs Xbox 360 DVD drive and movie playback
Both drives are able to playback DVD movies, but the PS3 can playback higher quality (1080p / 7.1 audio) high definition Blu-Ray movies by default as well. Both devices are able to upscale DVD content towards higher resolutions which improves imagine quality but adds no additional details and is thus inferior to native high definition versions. The PS3 has been awarded by reviewers as being one of the best (if not the best!) Blu-Ray players available. On the other hand the Xbox 360 DVD playback functionality has been proven to be one of the worst quality upscaling DVD players available.
Comparison (scaled down pictures, the differences are even more prevalent at full resolution, but I think this illustrates it well enough)
Xbox 360:
http://members.shaw.ca/VTXtreme/XBOXIA2.jpg
PS3:
http://members.shaw.ca/VTXtreme/PS3IABR1.jpg
Extreme Tech (January 30, 2007):
"Frankly, the Xbox 360 is a terrible DVD player. Yeah, we know it's primarily a game console. We know DVD movie playback is essentially a "free" feature. But it is a feature nonetheless, and an important one. As you can see, the Xbox 360 is basically a total failure at the HQV benchmark disc. Still, the 360 failed all of them, and failed some tests (the "jaggies" tests) that are critically important for DVD players."
One big complaints regarding the Xbox 360 is related to disc scratching. It appears the Xbox 360 often scratches discs, this either over time with smaller scratches or an acute deeply carved circle with certain type of drives. The PS3 has no such problems, due to improved lens sensitivity it can often even read horribly scratched discs. For instance I own an ex-rental version of the movie ‘V – The final Battle’ which has been horribly scarred on all sides (one double-sided DVD and a second single sided one) and except for 2 short halts the PS3 plays the 230+ minute movie just fine, this unlike my old dedicated DVD player (and our past Xbox 360). Next to this all Blu-Ray discs include protective coating which would take abnormal usage to scratch discs (they have to pass so called 'steel wool' rubbing tests).
The PS3 Blu-Ray reading speed for games is roughly comparable to the Xbox 360 drive, the main difference is that DVDs can be read far quicker at the outer edges of the disc than the inner layers (3.3x to 8x or 4.125 to 10.8 MB/s Dual Layer). A Blu-Ray drive offers sustained reading speeds (9 MB/s) throughout the disc, which can potentially aid developers with streaming, as this approach is more predictable. Due to a higher density on Blu-Ray discs seek times may be a little longer though, similar as was the case with moving from CD to DVD. Overall the differences result to that on average a single layer Xbox 360 DVD (12x max speed) can be read quicker than a Blu-Ray disc (but that’s small enough to be easily installed on the PS3 harddrive, which is much faster), but reading dual layer DVDs on average would be slower. Most later high quality PS2 games seem to be dual layer and considering the more data required to take advantage of the higher Xbox 360 specification I think we can assume all future Epic high profile games will come supplied on at least 1 dual layer DVD (some on multiple discs, like is already the case for Blue Dragon).
This brings me onto Blu-Ray’s main advantage regarding gaming. You can store a lot more data on a Blu-Ray disc than on a DVD, over 5 times as much. Taking into account complex future games sporting 1080p visuals as well as high quality 7.1 audio, it’s not hard to imagine the PS3 will require much more storage than was the case with regard to the PS2, note that many PS2 games like God of War 2 are taking up a whole DVD.
Noise generation: The Xbox drive is very loud, some models are louder than others. This can be a problem when someone is sleeping inside the same room while you are playing or watching a DVD (a headphone of course won’t help reduce this noise). The PS3 in general is a lot more silent, we don’t notice it at all if it’s on or off while stored inside the media cabinet, placed behind closed glass doors.
Conclusion: If you are interested in playing movies on your game console, the PS3 is simply the better choice. The Blu-Ray drive adds a lot of potential to the PS3 as gaming system and to double as a high quality movie player.
Backward compatibility
30% of the total US Xbox game library currently works, fewer titles are backward compatible in European and Japanese (about 8%) markets. Though for some games they added enhancements.
Currently the bulk of legacy Playstation and Playstation 2 titles already work on the PS3, adding the option to upscale to HD resolutions, play wirelessly and no need for memory cards for saving games.
Conclusion the PS3 wins this one hands-down. Especially considering IMO most Xbox games offer little replay value. IMO many older FPS games don’t really age that well.
Controllers
The main differences between the current Xbox 360 and PS3 controllers is the form factor which in the case of the Xbox 360 is larger, the battery in the PS3 controller can be easily charged through USB, the Xbox 360 controller supports vibrations and the current default PS3 controller does not (vibrating controllers will likely be released for the PS3 at a later date though), the PS3 controller supports motion sensing unlike the Xbox 360 controller.
Conclusion: This is a matter of opinion, my girlfriend got cramps due to the size of the Xbox 360 controller and she loves the cheap and fun motion sensing controlled games like Super Ruba-Dub and Fl0w. So for us the PS3 controllers wins hands down, especially as we see little use for vibrating controllers, it’s IMO cool for gunning but I mostly turned it off as IMO it’s overused, for instance it often is just a distraction for me or feels unrealistic with for instance your controller vibrating when you just died in a platform game. Rumble for me is not worth the battery-life or weight, at least the PS2 controllers were wired (Vibration seems better implemented on the Wii-mote though).
System interface and internet connectivity
PS3 games can be played through the internet for free, on the Xbox 360 one has to pay annual fees. Developers also claim the PSN to be more flexible for them to use.
Regarding the interface the Xbox 360 sports a very colorful easy to use user interface, but the PS3’s XMB is also easy to use and looks good with animated video and game icons, downscaled photographs, etc as wel. The Xbox 360 supports in-game custom sound tracks selection, but like other features such like DVD upscaling which were added to the Xbox 360’s capabilities at a later date through updates, similarly this feature and other unique features are expected to be added at a later date to the PS3 functionality as well (like Phill Harrison said “the PS3 as constantly evolving”). Unlike the Xbox 360 the PS3 comes supplied with an integrated web browser, which is a pretty nice additional option. Which one is easier to use or looks cooler is entirely dependent on personal preferences. On the PS3 there’s 3rd party OS support.
Unlike the Xbox 360 the PS3 comes with default WiFi support and a much higher potential bandwidth Gigabit Ethernet port. Both consoles can share data with other devices, but most interestingly the PS3 can connect with Sony’s PSP, providing the PSP with streamed media over the internet and even remote playing of supported PS3 games.
Conclusion: Overall I would say the PS3 wins this point.
Peripheral expansions
Unlike the Xbox 360 the PS3 comes with wireless Blue-Tooth (up to 7 devices) and Wi-Fi connections by default. The PS3 has one more USB 2.0 port, a higher bandwidth Gigabit Ethernet port, card readers such as SD, Compact Flash and Memory Sticks. The PS3 also already supports some printers. The Xbox 360 unlike the PS3 includes an IR port.
Unlike the Xbox 360 the PS3 can be easily expanded using mainstream peripherals such as PC keyboards, mice, Blue-Tooth headsets and 2.5 inch SATA hard drives.
Newer Xbox 360 versions supports HDTVs to be connected through HDMI 1.2, the PS3 supports up to HDMI 1.3 which allows for up to twice the output bandwidth.
Conclusion: the PS3 wins this one hands-down.
Power usage
As a last resort sometimes fans of rival consoles like to point to the PS3’s power supply. The PS3 has a lot of headroom regarding its power supply, but a large percentage of this potential isn’t actually utilized with ordinary usage. The PS3 consumes marginal more power than the Xbox 360 and by taking into account the power usage of a HDTV for both consoles, the difference is neglectable and should not nearly cost as much as a Xbox live subscription with very regular use.
Harddrive inclusion
Default harddrive, having a harddrive in a console is not only useful for playing game demos and downloading other kinds of content. A harddrive can be used to partially of fully install games or use it for harddrive caching to reduce loading times. It can also serve as virtual memory, given the PS3 a (potentially) significant default memory advantage over the Xbox 360. Having one by default means games developers can assume any PS3 owner has one. On the Xbox 360 most developers will take into account the lack of a default harddrive, which can severely hamper games development and hurts those who do own a harddrive (sadly also indirectly regarding PS3 owners as many games are intended for both platforms).
Overall conclusion: Albeit the PS3 is more expensive than the other consoles, the PS3 still provides great value if you look at the technology being offered to us. There surely is nothing to be ashamed of for being enthusiastic about and supportive towards the PS3. The Xbox 360 may be well hyped, especially in the US, but the console is clearly not without its design faults, hardware limitations and problems.
With future expansions like DVR capabilities, Playstation Eye games, free Playstation Home and high profile exclusive games like Final Fantasy XIII, Gran Turismo 5, Killzone 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 the PS3’s future looks far from bleak!
Feel free to correct any mistakes and add your personal perspectives!
Appendix: Xbox 360 Premium (20 GB HD, HDMI 1.2) + HD DVD drive + Wi-Fi + 1 year Xbox Live subscription vs PS3 60 GB
Of course as you can read above by having these expansions doesn’t nearly put the Xbox 360 on par with the PS3 technically, for example the HD DVD drive cannot even be used for games which makes sense as for one the drive is half the speed as compared to the PS3’s drive. Let alone how inelegant it is to need additional wires and power supply for the external HD DVD drive. But still interesting such a setup still costs $349,99 + $179,99 + $94,99 + $49.99 = $674,96 !!=> So, much more than a more elegant all-in-one $500 PS3 60GB!
