madcrazy said:
The truth hurts... Doesn't it? |
Of course, thats why im rolling around on the floor in agony. Oh my god, ow... it hurts so bad.
![]()
madcrazy said:
The truth hurts... Doesn't it? |
Of course, thats why im rolling around on the floor in agony. Oh my god, ow... it hurts so bad.
![]()
| S.T.A.G.E. said: You two need to get married already. :) |
Only if you are the bridesmaid.
![]()
luvtospooge said:
I have yet to see a game on the 360 like killzone 2. |
Don't worry. You will with time (like graphics matter anyway), because the 360, like the PS3 is nowhere near maxed out.
| aavidbacon said: This is not only true, but the main selling point of the PS3. Normal, "casual" gamers, people who likes games, but not enough to talk or get informed about them, have this image of the PS3 being more powerful. This is why they buy it at close numbers to the x360, despite the price difference. This is clever marketing and a thing they should stress more and more, cause allows them an edge till they are capable of levelling the price. If or when that happens, this perception(PS3>x360) can assist the PS3 selling more than x360, despite producing the same graphics and having more or less the same games. |
Even if the PS3 is all and all superior, and shows, what it has shown hasn't resulted in people wanting to pay more for it, over the PS3, to be able to play it. A problem shown historically is screaming you have better specs doesn't work (DON'T make be bring out the "Do the Math" Jaguar ad to show this). What people see are the game, and how they look and play. And apparently this doesn't matter to people either, because the Wii outsells both the PS3 and 360.
luvtospooge said:
I have yet to see a game on the 360 like killzone 2. |
| bugrimmar said: ^ it's not more powerful than the pc i'm using now. and the power it has over the 360 isn't the "light years" thing that PR leads on casuals to believe. this thread isn't about "which console is more powerful". i'm talking about sony's PR stating it's "way beyond anything on the market today". so yea, your post is rather irrelevant. |
than your CPU it's is.. but your cpu its better running a windows OS.
S.T.A.G.E. said:
|
You said it. I do think that when they will be both maxed out, the 360 will actually be close to ps3's graphics.
| bugrimmar said: ^I'm running an i7 processor. there's no way that a 3 year old thing can be faster than something produced this year. ask a real tech person to get the details. it really looks like a lot of people bought Sony's PR.. |
Umm.. actually, the original Cell (like the one used in the PS3) is faster than any i7 in existance, when it comes to raw parallel performance, for apps requiring en-masse parallel problem solving.
Your i7 is way better at running Excel, Word, iTunes, and any game not requiring serious parallism from the CPU at the same time than the Cell, however.
The Cell really is a pretty advanced processor for what it does well, which is parallelism. If you were to compare the performance of Stanford's protein folding app, Folding@Home, on a Cell, vs any i7, the Cell would still win by a landslide. Most other things computers are used for... you're gonna want an i7 for sure.
As with many things, it really depends on the app in question. Games can have a lot of parallel problems to solve, if you weren't aware.
Carl2291 said:
Only if you are the bridesmaid. |
Touche................ ::goes to find a dress::