"TRUTH: Both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs are heavily stripped down compared to what most of us are probably using on our desktop computers to view this article. Both consoles are labeled as 3.2GHZ, but they don’t offer performance comparable to that of a typical Athlon 64 3200+ or better than even an Athlon XP 2800+ CPU. The CPUs inside the Xbox 360 and PS3 are “In-Order Execution” CPUs with narrow execution cores, whereas what we use on our computers are classified as “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs with wider execution cores.

The reason they can sell for so cheap is because they are not as robust or complex as what we have inside our computers. The execution theme in both the 360 and PS3’s CPUs is similar to that of what you would see in the original Intel Pentium Processor. (Not referring to the Pentium 2 3 or 4, but the original) This is because they’ve stripped out hardware designed to optimize the scheduling of instructions at runtime. As a result, neither the 360 nor PS3’s CPU contain an instruction window. Instead, instructions pass through the processor in the order in which they were fetched; hence both are “In-Order Execution” CPUs.

Marketing talk from Microsoft and Sony: Thanks to these multi-core processors developers will be able to multi-thread their games and get significant performance improvements and achieve Artificial Intelligence in games that people previously thought impossible for a videogame. It’ll be as if you’re playing with another living breathing human being."

Selnor, I wonder what if..the ps3 and 360 had out “Out-of-Order Execution” CPUs, would we've been seeing greater games?!

Absolutely without a doubt. You see both Sony and M$ know that their CPU's are no match for PC CPU's. being in order execution and having only 512kb L2 Cache hurts PS3 CPU potential. It's a brilliant article, that has been recognised for the TRUTH of the consoles. MAkes a good point that although the CPU in PS3 is more powerful ( not as much as people think ) the 360 CPU is actually capable of much more complex AI. But Cell can be used to great affect for clothing animations, etc.

On the same point the GPU in 360 is actually alot more advanced than PS3's and can actually do some work for the CPU. In the end it works pretty much that 360 is capable of clearer images and better effects, such as lighting and smoke etc. But both are pretty much equal in terms of raw power. Because Cell has to compensate RSX being the weaker chip, and Xenos helps 360 CPU with some of it's work load. They end up being pretty equal.

Did you read the whole article. It's the most factual article on the internet, and has been used and reposted by many sites and tech sites. Widely regarded as the TRUTH behind 360 and PS3.

Firstly you provide me with no links. And 2nd if it's not factual and does not provide info from IBM, Sony, M$, ATI and Nvidia like the article I provided I cannot take it over this widely recognised factual article. You did read it all and look at the source material of the article I posted? You cannot argue with raw facts.

^exacly. So go read it. Look for it on google. It's not heavy reading.

And no I didn't read from your link.

Why do you ask ?

well firstly I doubt it'll provide me with any knowledge I don't know. Second of all you've kept beating around the bush and finally you post the link to a article written by whomever agrees with you, though i'm certain there are several that disprooves you.
You can't argue with fact and yet you keep doing it. If we look at the numbers.. As i started out with. The ps3 has the edge.
It's a fact.
Why won't i use hard evidence to disprove you ?..
I don't care enough to go searching through the internet to find 1 little thing so that i can go HAH ! when i know that you'll completely disregard it in the next post as you previously has.

Hey come on. You make yourself look silly. I have not done this to you. If you read the article you would know it's no fanboy article. It's an article that slices right through both Sony and M$ PR BS. It's not an article in an attempt to prove one is better than the other. But yopu would know that if you read it. Hence someone that did read it asked me a normal question to do with the article.

I dont listen to PR BS with no evidence. For instance concerning your fave console Sony will make you believe that PS3 can do 218 GFLOPS. Well yes with 8 SPUS and in controlled environment. In reality the top games at the end of the gen will be lucky to get 80 Gflops from PS3. Now it's up to you to understand computing and why this is FACT. Sony were clever for instance to say it in such a way that they new people would think you'd get 218 GFLOPS but they new it would be nowhere near. So they use that beautiful word Theoretical.

Really read the article. He slices through M$ PR BS to. And you thought it was some dum one sided article. It's the most factual article on the internet.

Microsoft did the same with the exception that their theoretical limit is around half the gflops...

Now I don't look at flops I look at the capabilities

For instance if we take the gpus alone the 360 has a slight advantage over the ps3. This is in particular due to the shared ram with the cpu. However, each mb you take and give to the gpu is one you remove from the gpu. It's a poll of 512 mb but developers like it because it gives them more freedom.

Ps3 has 256 mb in both instances locked. But while the 360s shared memory of gddr ram runs at 700 mhz. Ps3 has 256 mb that runs at this speed and 256mb xdr ram that runs at 3.2 ghz.

This gives the processor a huge advantage. Because the ps3s processor does not only have more raw power, but with the spus the ps3 gets an advantage within it's graphical capabilities.

If you'd read the santa monica presentation, they show how without the spu they have to put 50 percent of the things in a frame on the gpu and 50 percent on the ppu (this is ofcourse a cut down simple version.)

However, with the spus they can take about half the load off the cpu and half the load of the gpu having the frame they were making render in about half the time.

And that is what gives ps3 its edge. The spus are extremely good at certain things that many first party ps3 games take good usage off. These for instance include procedual textures and a streaming enviroment.

Ofcourse theres also the blu ray and the harddisk.

The blu ray has both advantages and disadvantages, but the main thing to take note off is the space. It might run slower than a dvd drive but with all the space on a blu ray you don't really have to compress many things.. And that means that everything is read faster by the ps3 (well compaired to if they had been compressed.)

Now ofcourse it's not all games that needs this amount of space, but it's certainly not a bad thing to be able to work with.

The harddisk in all ps3s makes so that games can continually layer information it needs to access a lot on the drive and be able to find it quickly which is another thing that speeds up games, and a reason why some third party developers tend to hog 5 gigs of your harddrive.

Now the biggest issue with third party developers in general has been that they've been trying to put everything on the ppu alone without using the spus. It's in these instances we often see sup-par ports and decreased visual qualities and poor framerate performance.

In general again, the spus are really all that makes the difference. They can be used as GPUs and CPUs depending on what you need them for.. but you need to take advantage of them.

The fact that each also has their own cache means they're practically able to perform independent.

I might read your article but it's not gonna be now. I'm kinda busy with other stuff too.

You have a massively wrong and unfactual reality of the 2 gpus. I suggest you read the factual article. Theres a whole section on the 2 gpu's. And the Memory.

^Not only am I not wrong, but it's not smart to rely on one simple article when there are so many.

it's funny staude makes so many blatant guffs on basic hardware performance but claims to be a games developer

...  Look, the better the graphics, the less space there is on the disc for the actual GAME you're supposed to be playing.  Anyone want a game with the absolute best graphics only to beat it 2 1/2 hours later?  If you want a game like that, go out and get it, it's YOUR money, and YOUR game.  HDDVD discs that the 360 use simply does not have the capacity of bluray, it's not opinion, it's fact.  So, although the 360 could do almost everything the PS3 can in terms of graphics, would you be willing to sacrifice gameplay?

I think if anything, fighters should push the limits of graphics, because there's not going to be as much going in as there would be in an action/adventure (usually).

All in all, you get what you pay for, and if you recieve it as a gift, and don't like it because of the graphics, or what system it game out on because you're too fanboyish to play a particular system, you can be an ass, and take your game back to the store and trade it for something else.  If you don't like a game, don't buy it, it's your money, and your decision.

For me personally, I don't like RE5, all you do is shoot and run for most of the game (or all, from what I've seen)  I need more than that, so you know what?  I never got the game, and don't care for it.  As for uncharted, I just didn't want it.  So, you know what I did? I got Metal Gear Solid 4: Limited Edition.  SOMETHING I WANTED AND GLAD I GOT.  And, I refuse to buy any game that I feel is not as good, or better than MGS4.  It's my collection, and if I only have MGS4, and THPG  (came with PS3) that's my choice.  People have different tastes.  Besides, my favorite genre is fighting, hence the name "Burning Typhoon" (MvC).

Quit trying to force your preferences on others, if anything, it'll make them hate the game you're promoting even more.  What the point in this argument?  Do you expect someone who doesn't have a PS360 to go out and get a PS3 just to test out the graphics of MGS4?  And then somehow come to the conclusion that you were right all along? lmao.