Carl2291 said: PS3 exclusives have proven that its better with graphics than the 360.
Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2 and Uncharted are better looking than any 360 exclusive released so far, imo of course.
The PR has worked well... really well. When i showed my dad MGS4 for the first time he was astonished by the graphics and thought the PS3 was the most high-tech thing on the planet. Seriously, anyone of the "casual" gamers ive known who have got there hands on it, or see or hear about what it can do... are amazed.
The thing even helps to cure diseases and illness...
Metal Gear Solid and KZ2 have the capability to be played on the 360. You're arguing over space, not graphics.
capability or probability?
Capability. The major strength the PS3 has over the 360 is space. because the 360 has to share to share a processor for space and graphics. Together its equal to Sony's though, if it isn't using too much power.
I have yet to see a game on the 360 like killzone 2.
To me Gears 2 looks every bit as good as killzone 2, better to me actually because the color palette isn't dominted by blacks and greys. I'm sure there are some technical bits about killzone 2 that look nicer, but certainly not enough to make me go "Dayum! That's hot right there!". The difference is negligible at best.
No it's not...Play the whole game. At a point, you will find yourself in the desert. At another point, your on a cruiser ship which isn't dominated by black and greys. Then at another point, you will find yourself in a red atmosphere caused by an explosion, with particle effects going on everywhere. Gears of war 2 is very colorful.
The following is technically a spoiler, so don't watch it unless you played the game or if you like spoilers.
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.
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.
The average PPD on the PS3 doing folding @ home is 900:
The CBE cell is currently about a $50 processor, most likely less once transitioned to a 45nm die process.
Surprised to see that it matches a $220 CPU like the Q9550. And a bit more than 10% slower than a $1600 QX9770.
Even more surprised to see that a QX9775 processes about 30% faster than a i7 965 in Folding.
That seems more than just a bit suspect considering that according to that chart the QX9770 provides only slightly more than 50% of the QX9775 processing ability.
I'm going to assume the QX9775 benchmark is running on a LGA 771 Skulltrail board with two CPUs running in parallel.
If anything, this confirms what many already know: Intel Extreme chips are ridiculously overpriced for what you pay for.
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.
The average PPD on the PS3 doing folding @ home is 900:
Which would put its performance above every sub $1,000 processor at the time (Were Core 2 Quads even out yet back then?)
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.
The average PPD on the PS3 doing folding @ home is 900:
Which would put its performance above every sub $1,000 processor at the time (Were Core 2 Quads even out yet back then?)
Just because Intel and AMD charge a hell of a lot and have good margins on the processors, doesn't mean that the chips weren't cheap to make. Its the whole Oligopoly/Monopoly thing.
FYI The GTX 275 gets 6,000 PPD. So paired with a fast processor the PPD/Cost ratio is better, even if you bought the machine prebuilt.
i laugh at people comparing the Cell vs the i7...guys, you're comparing a 2006 processor against a 2009 one and you can't say the difference between both, if you want an i7 you've to spend almost as much as a ps3 with 40gb
3 years in technology it's like a century in human evolution still a prehistoric processor is fighting against the superpowered i7....
another thing, i don't want to sound like a fanboy, but nowadays, the ps3 it's far ahead of 360 in terms of graphics, even after watching alan wake, mass effect 2 or splinter cell conviction, there's no doubt that after killzone 2, uncharted 2 will be the graphics king, and after uncharted 2, i'm sure it will be another ps3 exclusive...
I'm Back! - Proud owner of the best doomed handheld of all time!
coolbeans said: I find it laughable when the Sony speaker at E3 says "Only possible on PS3", that's just a foolish joke but when your just saying something about teh cElL (along the lines of jokes or just saying for fun), that is something though mustn't joke about 'cause it's power exceeds our understanding :P.
Tell me of a PR that has advertised it's enemy's product during tough times.
I wouldn't say that people think it's the most advanced thing on the planet, but I think alot of people understand that it's a pretty impressive machine for it's price
