• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Xbox 360 impressions from showfloor

Izzy said:
Metal Alien, I want you to write 1000 word essay on why PS3 and Xbox 360 are equal. Don't let me down.

My gut feeling and my eyes lead me to believe that theoretically the Xbox360 is equal to PS3 - on the screen, where it makes a difference!
 
Xbox: We've got more power than the PlayStation 2!.

PS2: It's all about the games! Power doesn't matter!

PS3: We've got 2x the power of the Xbox 360!

Xbox 360: It's all about the games! Power doesn't matter!

Or does it?
 
Cold-Steel said:
Xbox: We've got more power than the PlayStation 2!.

PS2: It's all about the games! Power doesn't matter!

PS3: We've got 2x the power of the Xbox 360!

Xbox 360: It's all about the games! Power doesn't matter!

Or does it?


It's all about the brand! Nothing else matters.

That's pretty much how it is and if anyone thinks otherwise, well, dream on. :lol
 
Ghost said:
I love how people say FACT: then give theoretical performance numbers.

:lol


360 does seem to be impressing more and more, the gamespot guys were gushing over Full Auto yesturday "Burnout with guns, im there".

Apparently there are a few live demos on the show floor over the show, so maybe they'll show more stuff.
Not only that, but X360 has 48 pipelines. PS3 has 24 pipelines. Notice how Sony did not display that stat on any spec-sheets.

X360 has 10mb of Edram on the chip. This allows for "free" Full Screen Anti-Aliasing. Sony has to dip into their 256mb of System Ram.

PSE = 1 CELL = 7 SPEs = 7 threads
X360 = 1 CPU = 3 cores = 6 threads

Theres all the info anyone should need. Both consoles are just about even in terms of power. One things for shure is that they are alot closer than Xbox and PS2 were.
 
Ghost of Bill Gates said:
Not only that, but X360 has 48 pipelines. PS3 has 24 pipelines. Notice how Sony did not display that stat on any spec-sheets.

X360 has 10mb of Edram on the chip. This allows for "free" Full Screen Anti-Aliasing. Sony has to dip into their 256mb of System Ram.

PSE = 1 CELL = 7 SPEs = 7 threads
X360 = 1 CPU = 3 cores = 6 threads

Theres all the info anyone should need. Both consoles are just about even in terms of power. One things for shure is that they are alot closer than Xbox and PS2 were.


:lol :lol :lol

First, Cell has 7 SPE's and 1 core = 8 processing units
IBM's processor has 3 cores, but each allows 2 instructions <> 6 processing units.

Processor-wise, Sony KILLS Microsoft. It's not even close.

And you do know that the emotion engine was more powerful than Xbox's pentium 3, right? Of course, the EE had to do ALOT of the graphics work and then pass off the vertex information to the GPU, whereas the GPU on the XBox was able to do most of it's heavy lifting. And then there was the 4MB VRAM, which was probably the single biggest thing that hurt the PS2 vs Xbox.

I don't know that I've seen any real comparison of Xbox vs PS2 to say what the "speed" difference was, but I don't believe it was 2x, but I could be wrong.
 
sonycowboy said:
First, Cell has 7 SPE's and 1 core = 8 processing units
IBM's processor has 3 cores, but each allows 2 instructions <> 6 processing units.

Processor-wise, Sony KILLS Microsoft. It's not even close.

It seems close to me by your own logic. :lol
 
You want numbers? You got numbers:

UE3 realtime demo on PS3 @ 60FPS in 2 months.

UE3 prerendered demo based on X360 specs @ 5FPS, presumably many months, due to its exclusive nature.

60 > 5, 60 = 12*5

PS3 12 times more powerful!!1
 
Still think the Playstation 3 is more powerful? I sure don't... It's becoming apparent with steady news leaks on both consoles that PS3 isn't as powerful as sony wants you to believe..not even mentioning the CGI movies Sony shown at E3, but the Fuzzy Math specs.

Nvidia uses separate Vertex and Pixel Shaders, ATI uses a Unified Shader which does both Vertex and Pixel Shading using the same Shader. When Nvidia calculates performance, it totals both Vertex and Pixel Shaders running at peak efficiency. When ATI calculates performance, it totals the performance of the single unified shader (composed of both Pixel and Vertex shaders) at peak efficiency. So this means that in order to compare ATI's performance to Nvidia's, you would double the rated performance.
 
Izzy said:
Comedy gold.
sheep.gif
 
Everyone and their psuedo numbers keeps forgetting about memory bandwidth. The PS3 has two distinct busses (no contention) both marginally faster than the 360's single bus. The PS3 also has that freakishly fat pipe between it's CPU & GPU.

However, if the eDRAM really does give "free" anti-aliasing to the 360 at 720p (and beyond), that is an enormous advantage. Yeah, anti-aliasing helps even at 1600x1280.

They will both really kick ass. I think the PS3 could be more powerful in most areas, but who knows if anyone will take advantage of it.

Oh, and we haven't seen shit in real-time from EITHER company. Until I see actual hardware (and not a PC or Mac) running code, it's all fake.

Small gripe: screw them both for basically offering the same controllers as last generation (with small, obvious improvements)
 
Hey ghost coud you care to give us some direct links to those "steady news leaks" that show the 360 is equal in power to the ps3? I'm having a little trouble finding them myself.
 
bigfurb said:
Hey ghost coud you care to give us some direct links to those "steady news leaks" that show the 360 is equal in power to the ps3? I'm having a little trouble finding them myself.

Waits for the neowin link. :lol

Ghost, do you actually know ANYTHING about GPU's? Your posts are full of comments from other threads that spread this same neowin crap, which will end up belonging to Deadmeat :lol "Fuzzy Math" is straight from that random post.
 
bigfurb said:
Hey ghost coud you care to give us some direct links to those "steady news leaks" that show the 360 is equal in power to the ps3? I'm having a little trouble finding them myself.

The hardocp article is one that was just release today...there's a link in this thread I gave yesterday. You might want search.
 
it would be pretty easy for Sony to bump the specs to get the performance they need.
Especially with the 6 month window. I mean X360 is 6 months away and they're still working at 30% performance?
 
seismologist said:
it would be pretty easy for Sony to bump the specs to get the performance they need.
Especially with the 6 month window. I mean X360 is 6 months away and they're still working at 30% performance?

You're falling for the bait...
 
According to the newest information released by Microsoft they were hiding information to throw Sony off, and the Xbox 360 GPU is indeed more powerful than that of the Ps3.


And are you so sure Sony and nVidia fully tip their hat?

How about it Bill.
 
Chittagong said:
So, I finally got to see what Microsoft had to show. No, not the Xbox 360. Very brief impressions:

- All demos I saw on Microsoft booth had a Xbox 360 unit as a decoy, but inside the box there was an alpha kit running the games
- Full Auto, Call of Duty, Kameo, the Sega hack-n-slash, the tennis game all were very meh - 1.5 indeed
- No Perfect Dark to be seen
- Xbox and Xbox 360 games were just next to each other, without a clear, dedicated area for Xbox 360.
- Need for Seed looked awful - framerate 10 - 15 fps occasionally (understandable at this point) and controls almost unplayable
- The console looks a lot cooler in real life than in pictures. It was well hidden just next to the Gizmondo booth, outside the Xbox booth. Controller is smaller than I expected.

Just to say that I agree with those points. I was especially disappointed with Condemned and Need For Speed - both lacked polish and were moving well below 30fps. Alpha dev kits aside, it was probably better to not show them as the impression they left were not of the positive variety. The rest of the stuff looked okay, I enjoyed the Call of Duty 2 demo (slight bias maybe since I know the level designer and AI programmer on that team) and Kameo showed potential.

I didn't get to see much at the Sony area - the PS3 line (at least that’s what I think it was) was pretty long so I decided to stand in equally long line to play Zelda (I ended up waiting 2hrs) as opposed to seeing pre-rendered demos (rim-shot).

I was really hoping to see some PSP games but alas not too many interesting things going on there. I briefly stopped by the DS area to watch my friend go at it in a Mario Kart DS wireless match which he took first place and won a cool Mario Kart package.

So to sum it up a bit, Zelda was awesome, Conker is wicked fun, We Love Katamari is on my must buy list, Starcraft Ghost is coming along nicely, and above all, I got a photo with Link - that alone was worth the trip, lol.
 
Izzy said:
Since when fanboy babble on an Internet forum counts as a fact? Empirical evidence, please. With detailed spec comparison.
how about you do the same as to why it's not... since you're so sure about it.
 
Can someone tell me if the games on the floor are mainly being limited by the cpu or the gpu in the alpha kits.
 
dorio said:
Can someone tell me if the games on the floor are mainly being limited by the cpu or the gpu in the alpha kits.

everything?

It's running on dual G5 with an X800

It's limited on the cpu
It's limited on the gpu
and it's also limited to the bandwidth constraints of a regular computer motherboard.

that and it's probably using regular ol DDR ram instead of GDDR3 ram.

yay.
 
Top Bottom