First REAL Xbox 360 Vs. Playstation 3 Comparision
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
dubyateeeff
Newcomer
Hardknock said:
Except I am guessing the x2 version had more development resources, since x2 is going to launch before ps3? Oh, I think I hit the nail on the head
MechanizedDeath
Regular
AC4 shown for the PS3 is still two months old. They showed the same trailer at TGS that they showed in July. No idea if the 360 trailer is realtime, but many of the buildings and other art assets look pulled straight from the PS3 trailer. I don't see why it would have to be prerendered. No confirmation for/against.
No official word on when RSX has taped out. No confirmation for/against.
Plenty of realtime PS3 stuff has been shown. Just take a quick look around the web.
PS3 alpha kits are significantly different if you go by Goto. 30% lower clock on Cell and RSX, and 1/7 the bandwidth between the two chips. Not sure if any actual devs here have supported the notion, but the argument has been that PS3 alphas are closer in power than 360 alphas. Not that it's a mere "tweak". How reliable that info is no one knows. PEACE.
No official word on when RSX has taped out. No confirmation for/against.
Plenty of realtime PS3 stuff has been shown. Just take a quick look around the web.
PS3 alpha kits are significantly different if you go by Goto. 30% lower clock on Cell and RSX, and 1/7 the bandwidth between the two chips. Not sure if any actual devs here have supported the notion, but the argument has been that PS3 alphas are closer in power than 360 alphas. Not that it's a mere "tweak". How reliable that info is no one knows. PEACE.
a) It would seem "Console Games" would be a better spot for this thread
b) I don't think it's remotely sensible to compare two different games while they're in production. The number of variables is just too great to come up with a 1 to 1 comparison, even if it is "the same game" and even if you had access to their dev schedule and could say with any certainty that both games are at the same point in the schedule.
.Sis
b) I don't think it's remotely sensible to compare two different games while they're in production. The number of variables is just too great to come up with a 1 to 1 comparison, even if it is "the same game" and even if you had access to their dev schedule and could say with any certainty that both games are at the same point in the schedule.
.Sis
MechanizedDeath said:
I would consider clock speed differences tweaks, whereas, going from an Apple Power Mac w/ 9800s/x800 to xenon and xenos a significant difference, with the Sony Alpha you may not have the speed, but you have the hardware.
I guess what got me thinking about that was ERPs post in another thread talking about tiling on the xenos and that devs have not had anything comparable to work with until they got the xenos, to me that is a bigger difference than using 2.4GHz cell vs. 3.2GHz, even moreso considering when they (360 devs) received Finals and the impending launch date.
Im not even sure if what was shown at TGS was Xbox 360 footage at all, since there were some scenes that have been shown at E3 already for PS3, and that are now sold as 360 footage by some. Also since the game was not in dev. for the 360 at E3, that might add up to my theory (which is still PS3 development footage).
scatteh316
Newcomer
I would say that the 360 is futher into the development process, maybe they are concentrating on the 360 version in order to get it on the shelves ASAP?
MechanizedDeath
Regular
How do PS3 devs simulate the split memory pools and get a feel for the latencies when they have 5GB/s compared to the full 35GB/s of FlexIO? Isn't PS3 a system built with the close interaction of Cell/RSX in mind? It's more than a tweak. PEACE.NucNavST3 said:
At least some PS3 devs have had part of the hardware since E3. It makes me wonder if it would have been better for Microsoft to give devs the hardware at half the speed than to continue using the alpha kits as long as they did. Giving devs updated hardware the closer they got to launch. Eventhough the performance would not have been great, it would have given devs more time to tackle the whole OOO to IO problem, mess with multithread on the Xenon and more time with the Xenos. Now I don't know if it would have been possible at all for Microsoft to do that but it seems like devs would have been in a better postion if MS had done this instead.
MechanizedDeath said:
Ok, you win, its more than a tweak.
How would a 360 dev get a feel for ANYTHING, considering they had no Xenon (as opposed to the ps3 alpha which at least had the Cell), and no Xenos (for which there is no comparable part, again as opposed to the PS3 alpha which has the RSX and possibly a comparable PC part as well in the shape of the 7800).
Its cool our versions of "radically different" are, umm, different. At the end of the day, I don't give a damn, I just want my games in HD and jaggieless.
Acert93 said:STOP THE PAIN!
1. The game is not released.
2. The games are obviously in different stages of development.
3. We are not comparing the same scene/time of day, etc for a relative comparison
4. RSX is not complete and have yet to receive final PS3 beta kits
5. Devs are just hunkering down on the 360
6. Cross platform games are going to look about the same anyhow.
#6 is important. Devs of cross platform games are going to have performance goals that fit nicely into the envolope of each system.
For all those people, all 2 of them, who were not aware of the fact that PS3 and Xbox 360 multiplatform games would look basically the same here you go. Outside of that... what is the point of this thread?
Ps- Have a nice day
QFT
I can't answer for him, but I would think no, if they get the game running desent the architecture is close enough that it should run just fine, and maybe get a higher framerate from the higher clock speed, just some of the bandwidth will go unused.
unless they wanted to take advantage of the bandwidth then that's differrent they could add more to the game maybe
Similar threads
