-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Microsoft: XBox 360 outpowers PS3
- Thread starter Hollywood
- Start date
Spectral Glider
Member
:lol
When was the cell ever supposed to get the job done graphically? Where do some of you get this stuff? Honestly, it's killing me. Yep, there was never supposed to be any graphics chip in the PS3, ever, just a CPU.
Cold-Steel
Member
TheDuce22 said:
That's because someone came in and spoiled someone else's party.
To be honest, I read all that and don't even see how that makes any sense. Isn't the PS3 coming out next year and on top of that where the hell did all those assumptions about the GPU come from when Sony released only limited information on the specs and it's not even expected to be completed until the end of the year? All I know is that the xboys are having a field day with this.
Cold-Steel said:
It doesn't make sense because you are forgetting a few important things.
The 360 hardware isn't finished yet, whereas the hardware Epic ported their engine onto something that can't be considered PS3.
You are comparing a picture of an apple to a carving of an orange.
At the beginning of this generation, EA actually released benchmark results for the 3 major consoles. It didn't do a damn bit of good as far as shutting down fanboy battles, but it was quite informative. Hopefully someone has the balls to do something similar for the next batch of systems.
Black Widow
Member
CosmicGroinPull said:
Sure LMAO if it makes you happy. Those folks don't have many answers. We'll have to wait for final hardware and benchmarks. Still makes good theatre :lol
Cold-Steel
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
Not really.
The 360 is near-final hardware. The PS3 is still more than a year away.
The Spiderman BBQ grill and Batarang will be memories by then.
Where-ever the truth lies, this is very effective spin-mongering from MS - the graphs are all most people will look at (I know I didn't bother reading the rerst) and they tell a very positive story for Xbox360 - whether they are based on fact or even measure things that have anything to do with which system's games will look better or not.
Sony was playing the "don't buy the first system released because ours will be stronger" card at E3 like they did when preparing to launch PS2 after Dreamcast, but unlike Sega, MS have done something to get an argument out there that hey, you CAN buy the first console released and expect it to be the most powerful. Good move. Looking forward to Sony's counter argument and ensuing hilarity.
Sony was playing the "don't buy the first system released because ours will be stronger" card at E3 like they did when preparing to launch PS2 after Dreamcast, but unlike Sega, MS have done something to get an argument out there that hey, you CAN buy the first console released and expect it to be the most powerful. Good move. Looking forward to Sony's counter argument and ensuing hilarity.
Black Widow
Member
Spectral Glider said:
Hey I just know what I read. No expert here. There wasn't supposed to be a nvidia GPU in the PS3 but there is... If you want to correct me feel free.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Black Widow said:
It does, it does.
The desperation amuses me.Beats knowing jack shit.
Fo sho!!
Black Widow
Member
It can not be said enough how effective these graphs are. I had a friend a few days ago tell me that the PS3 was 2X the power of the X360 soley based on SONYs fp chart showing 2X performace. :lol at my friend but I wasn't gonna burst her bubble.
seismologist
Banned
byproduct said:
yeah I must say they're doing a good job creating confusion. Even with meaningless specs. Anything to make the X360 look good.
Spectral Glider
Member
Black Widow said:
It was announced last year that Nvidia and Sony had been working on the PS3 for two years or more.
Mike Works said:You're all so quick to jump on the "Microsoft is spinning", "Microsoft with their damage control" bandwagons, but have we seen any actual PS3 games RUNNING and being PLAYED?
No.
Honestly, you may view it as spin, but I think they're being very honest with some of these charts.
It's not Microsoft's fault that Sony isn't delivering.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh God, Mike Works delivers the BEST POST OF E3 2005. E3 2005 might have been over by then, but God...he WINS.
Fight for Freeform said:
You are correct. None of this stuff is running on final hardware, but what I think he meant was that the specifications are pretty much frozen at this point since it's so close to manufacture not even launch. If they are launching this system worldwide this year. They'll need to produce a lot of chips in advance.
Spectral Glider said:
Don't bite my head off if I'm wrong, but according to one of the interviews from ATI (...not sure why he would know but anyways...) the original design for the PS3 was to do all the graphics in software and to be powered by 3, 4, or more Cells. When Sony didn't get the results they wanted, they called Nvidia. Perhaps they were the back-up plan all along.
True or not, it is what the man said.
Hey I found the quote...
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/xbox_360_interview/page6.asp
As someone stated above, the fact that this is even an argument is damaging to Sony. All i know is that i had been led to believe that the Cell chip was a monster and would revolutionize graphics. The Cell would enable the PS3 to create graphics "an order of magnitude" greater than anything the other consoles could create.
Then recently we all started hearing that ok, maybe the difference won't be that huge but it will still be at the very least like the difference between Xbox and PS2. And there was no chance that 360 would be able to produce games as graphically impressive as the PS3.
Now it's turned into, you probably won't really be able to tell the difference between the two as far as graphics are concerned.
Anyone see a pattern developing here?
Then recently we all started hearing that ok, maybe the difference won't be that huge but it will still be at the very least like the difference between Xbox and PS2. And there was no chance that 360 would be able to produce games as graphically impressive as the PS3.
Now it's turned into, you probably won't really be able to tell the difference between the two as far as graphics are concerned.
Anyone see a pattern developing here?
Black Widow
Member
Spectral Glider said:
What 3rdman said. Logical assumtion though true. Why would SONY want to bed nVidia after nVidia proved with MS they're not the easiest to work with (my take)? I'm also assuming (a safe assumption) the SONY/nVidia partnership will negatively affect SONYs break even point on the console.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Whoa, this specs analysis is like a sand-box for a kid... you dive in and you find tons of crap hidden beneath and sometimes in clear sight too.
This comparison is worth crap as it keeps comparing Apples to freaking Watermelons, but it is written to sound plausible.
Did they hire the a politician's speech-writer to format this ?
This comparison is worth crap as it keeps comparing Apples to freaking Watermelons, but it is written to sound plausible.
Did they hire the a politician's speech-writer to format this ?
I like PS series better although X360 is still getting DOA... 
But really I don't care if Xbox360 is stronger but I don't trust this "document" MS sent out. Obviously they will say theirs is stronger. Sony would then say theirs is stronger if they sent their own "document" out. Face it, if PS3 is stronger, it's stronger. If not, that doesn't stop PS3.
I'll wait till I actually see a PS3/X360 game with my own eyes. And as long as Time Crisis comes out on PS3 I'm good for PS3 even though it has nothing to do with either system being stronger :lol
But really I don't care if Xbox360 is stronger but I don't trust this "document" MS sent out. Obviously they will say theirs is stronger. Sony would then say theirs is stronger if they sent their own "document" out. Face it, if PS3 is stronger, it's stronger. If not, that doesn't stop PS3.I'll wait till I actually see a PS3/X360 game with my own eyes. And as long as Time Crisis comes out on PS3 I'm good for PS3 even though it has nothing to do with either system being stronger :lol
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Black Widow said:
Not easy to work with ? Hey, it was MS getting in the game late and not being able to convince nVIDIA to license the IP to them and having to buy finished chips from them instead.
Spectral Glider
Member
When it was finally announced that Sony would actually use Cell in the PS3, there was speculation that maybe Sony would use mutliple cell chips in it. However, I don't seem to recall any official statements with regards to that.
ATI would comment on it because, well obviously, they are Nvidia's competitor. The only other "official" word I know of was from Nvidia's press release in Decmeber of 04 that states they had been working with Sony for two years. Cell was announced sometime in 2001.
ATI would comment on it because, well obviously, they are Nvidia's competitor. The only other "official" word I know of was from Nvidia's press release in Decmeber of 04 that states they had been working with Sony for two years. Cell was announced sometime in 2001.
Black Widow
Member
I agree that this is boys in a gym locker room comparing each others you know whats. Wider, longer, whatever mine does it better :lol. Silly boys. Silly MS and SONY. o_0 prelaunch should be something. I don't think we've seen anything yet. Should start cranking up late August I imagine. Godzilla vs King Kong for real and we're all in the front row.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
This "analysis" bring bitter memories of people analyzing PS2 and Dreamcast somehow finding that DC always came out on top. Or later on with PS2 vs. GC or Xbox where PS2 was coming out on top. It always happens no matter visual differences are obvious or not...
I would like to hear/read more about this. Please PM me if the info is not that open for posting publically.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Black Widow said:
No, no... penis's lenght and circumference are much more valid and objective comparisons made of quite exact measurements
.Spectral Glider
Member
Godzilla vs. King Kong is a pretty relevant comparison actually. It always amazed me how King Kong went from 30 feet in size to take on Godzilla's like 150 or 160 feet in that movie. :lol Seems the MS numbers are getting equal treatment here.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
Panajev2001a said:No, no... penis's lenght and circumference are much more valid and objective comparisons made of quite exact measurements
Exactly. The PS3 will have plenty of girth...err bandwith. Um, Im leaving now.
Spectral Glider said:
Interesting how you're willing to believe one company's press release and not another?
I was never a big follower of Cell but I do remember the original concept behind it before it was ever announced for the PS3. It was a design in which Cells in a multi-CPU enviorment would pull resourses together for greater and greater performance. I remember seeing diagrams and reading discussions about a multi-Cell PC being discussed...it was assumed that this was also the groundwork for the PS3.
Once unveiled, it turned out that it wasn't the end all of CPU's (don't know the details here) and then suddenly Nvidia announces that they've been working with Sony for 2 years. Perhaps that is true, but I don't believe it and instead I'm more inclined to believe that they were the backup option if Cell didn't produce. Anyways, that how I remember it.
The_IGN_Man
Member
MightyHedgehog said:
I see what you're saying, and that's true, but the problem is that this is true on a grander scale. A lot of what this document does is nit pick, I think. You're not going to see any vast differences between something doing X amount of a certain processing, versus the competitors X+-2. I just don't buy that any of this document is truly worth reading from a gamers perspective (though it is from a marketers). It may be that where as I also enjoy tech specs, I just don't enjoy them as much as a lot of people on here. But that gets back to the real intent of my last statement: to what extent is someone able to enjoy mulling over and discussing the specs with friends before it becomes pointless. After a while, the specs are what they are, and the only thing left to do and spin them until you're happy with your "team" having won. I know that's not true for everyone, but for those people who fit into that category, those are the people I'm saying are in gaming for the wrong reasons. You could argue that their tech nuts for all the RIGHT reasons, but they're just not gamers for the right reasons, in my opinion. Also, please note that I'm a 3rd year CS major, so to anyone who would say "You just don't understand how people could enjoy talking about specs", you're wrong. I do understand, I just don't see the point when they're as close as they are. Maybe if I were getting $1,000,000 to prove my machine was better I would put forth a bit more enthusiasm, but until someone offers me that much to do so, I'll just stick to judging by the games themselves.
MightyHedgehog
Member
All MS is doing with that set of graphs is to show off the same way Sony did at the conference. I mean, Sony spent more than half of their PC talking about the specs of the system and showing off demos and pictures detailing what those numbers are supposed to bring us as a result. The charts, themselves, on MS' bit are ridiculous...but no more so than what Sony did at their PC if you consider why they bothered to put them up for people to see. It only seems more ridiculous because Sony showed first...leading many to believe that they outclassed MS completely with their system at their PC. The only thing that glosses over Sony's turn at it was that they wowed everyone with slick and impressive demos and artistic representations of the promise in their numbers come to life...MS has none but actual alpha-kit running games that are very early in developement. It was a choice time to take it to MS for Sony and it worked. So many people now believe that PS3 is two times the capability of X360 based on that big chart with PS3 towering over X360 in FP max.
Since MS is in direct competition with Sony, they had to throw up 'damage control' by comparing favorably with their own charts and graphs against them...just like Sony did. Sony didn't have MS' given specs to work with outside of a few things that were revealed before their PC...MS had more to work with because Sony showed first and gave them information to play against. Indeed, it could be considered by some to be a sort of 'defeat' for MS to reciprocate, as Sony certainly would've in their shoes.
I'm not arguing that any one is fair or totally reasonable in their figures and explanations that go along with most of their theoretical peak numbers that will likely never see realization in a game for the entire life of their consoles. It's all marketing and spin to throw at potential gamers and the opinion-makers. Sony threw stones and MS responds in kind.
The very likely truth of the matter is that they're both beyond such a level of pure programmable power and visual capability that seeing the differences will probably be difficult to gauge in the same game running on both systems. That's why what obviously sets them apart will become more important than the spec sheets could ever be... J Allard comes into my post now and says, "Hardware, software, and services."
/XBot damage control
Since MS is in direct competition with Sony, they had to throw up 'damage control' by comparing favorably with their own charts and graphs against them...just like Sony did. Sony didn't have MS' given specs to work with outside of a few things that were revealed before their PC...MS had more to work with because Sony showed first and gave them information to play against. Indeed, it could be considered by some to be a sort of 'defeat' for MS to reciprocate, as Sony certainly would've in their shoes.
I'm not arguing that any one is fair or totally reasonable in their figures and explanations that go along with most of their theoretical peak numbers that will likely never see realization in a game for the entire life of their consoles. It's all marketing and spin to throw at potential gamers and the opinion-makers. Sony threw stones and MS responds in kind.
The very likely truth of the matter is that they're both beyond such a level of pure programmable power and visual capability that seeing the differences will probably be difficult to gauge in the same game running on both systems. That's why what obviously sets them apart will become more important than the spec sheets could ever be... J Allard comes into my post now and says, "Hardware, software, and services."
/XBot damage control
Black Widow
Member
Spectral Glider said:
Purposely relevant. Godzilla is Japanese and King Kong is good ole USA. Mega corporations. Mega consoles. Mega stakes. Battle for the ages.
BTW: Mighty Joe Young > King Kong. Maybe Nintendo is Mighty Joe Young. Smaller and adorable. King Kong is an unlikable Brute (Microsoft). Godzilla (SONY) breathes fire (tech demos :lol)
fortified_concept
Banned
Mike Works said:You're all so quick to jump on the "Microsoft is spinning", "Microsoft with their damage control" bandwagons, but have we seen any actual PS3 games RUNNING and being PLAYED?
No.
Honestly, you may view it as spin, but I think they're being very honest with some of these charts.
It's not Microsoft's fault that Sony isn't delivering.
:lol:lol:lol
MS actions the last two days seem to me desperate and quite pathetic. What I find even more pathetic though, is the various xbox fansites which presented these charts as fact. Anyway, they're obviously doing it to create confusion.