IGN: First PS3 vs Xbox 360 Comparison

[Tap In]

god forbid that both systems are similar in power and ability but with their own avenue to reach that destination.


PS3 is not going to be leaps and bounds past the X360. Next Gen starts next month (as weak as the first gen of next gen may or may not be) and it's all about the games.

Pick the system with your favorite games because each system will be similar, yet with their own flagship titles tailored to their strengths.

anything else is just system war rhetoric

 

[Shifty Geezer]

XB360 version looks better. PS3 is all using smoke and mirrors. I count 6 extra polygons per screen on XB360. PS3 looks bandwidth starved, and cell shaded, and the art direction sucks. The developers haven't got to grip with PS3's REYES renderer yet. And PS3's raytracing only works on 640x480 images so they've upscaled it for the movie. Jaggies hurt my eyes. XB360 version was in development 3 years earlier though, but it's only running on one core of an underclocked alpha kit and it's not even the full hardware. I know it's true. Bloke said down the pub. And my dad works at Microsoft and he's met Bill Gates and Bill said he was spending an extra billion dollars on the XB360 version of this game to make it look better.

 

[fastasleep]

Ironic to me that IGN's assessment of the reactions of parties has been borne out in this thread. This whole comparison comes under the general heading of who gives a flying you know what.

 

[Edge]

Why is IGN in the wrong here? They provide two videos, and said make up your own minds. What's wrong with that? They did not claim which console was better based on the videos. They did no different then was done on this very forum in another thread!

 

[seismologist]

looks to me like these two machines are going to be equal in overall ability.

Isn't it a little early to make that conclusion? It's not like the extra 1T flop computing power on the PS3 is going to go unused.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I hope this answers your question.

Why is IGN in the wrong here?!

IGN



IGN


IGN


IGN



IGN

 

[pakpassion]

Isn't it a little early to make that conclusion? It's not like the extra 1T flop computing power on the PS3 is going to go unused.

and you think flops matter? if they did the higher flops in PS2 would have as well.

 

[pakpassion]

How about the fact that the vid being shown of the PS3 version was certainly earlier in development (shown 2 months prior to XBOX360 version) and also, on an alpha/beta dev kit with a slower cpu and (as most here are forgetting) lacking the power of RSX? The final XBOX360 dev kits have both the full speed triple core processor and the Xenos GPU.

RSX is not the second coming of jesus, thank you.

 

[Junkstyle]

XB360 version looks better. PS3 is all using smoke and mirrors. I count 6 extra polygons per screen on XB360. PS3 looks bandwidth starved, and cell shaded, and the art direction sucks. The developers haven't got to grip with PS3's REYES renderer yet. And PS3's raytracing only works on 640x480 images so they've upscaled it for the movie. Jaggies hurt my eyes. XB360 version was in development 3 years earlier though, but it's only running on one core of an underclocked alpha kit and it's not even the full hardware. I know it's true. Bloke said down the pub. And my dad works at Microsoft and he's met Bill Gates and Bill said he was spending an extra billion dollars on the XB360 version of this game to make it look better.

lmao nice

 

[ROG27]

Pakpassion, I forgot you have the white papers on the RSX. How about you fill the rest of us in on the specs? I mean because you seem to know that it's going to be this or that. The fact is no one really knows how its going to fair against the Xenos...my guess is that it will be substantially more advanced and powerful (regardless of unified shaders or not). There seems to be something about the way it and cell work together that will have us surprised in the end. Or so it seems.

 

[Edge]

pakpassion, RSX is an incredibly powerful chip, no matter how you try to dismiss it.

> "The fact is no one really knows how its going to fair against the Xenos...my guess is that it will be substantially more advanced and powerful (regardless of unified shaders or not). There seems to be something about the way it and cell work together that will have us surprised in the end. Or so it seems."

I agree, the advantage of CELL reducing CPU limited games, and the incredibly high bandwidth between CELL and RSX will be a winning combination. RSX is based on a proven architecture in the PC space, and an architecture tweaked and perfected for the console space.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Flops matter

and you think flops matter? if they did the higher flops in PS2 would have as well.

Flops make a big difference but there is difference between flop count provided by GPU maker like Nvidia and programmable flops like CELL or PS2. For example, teraflop+ rating for Xenos and RSX is not programmable flops and not comparable with flops of CELL or Xenon.

As for PS2, there are many examples where high flops rating was useful like physics, animation, particles, high polygon count, etc... however, existence of many poor performing games such as GTA series was because of poor utilization of hardware by some developers.

 

[mckmas8808]

It's funny that this thread is not closed yet.

 

[pakpassion]

Pakpassion, I forgot you have the white papers on the RSX. How about you fill the rest of us in on the specs? I mean because you seem to know that it's going to be this or that. The fact is no one really knows how its going to fair against the Xenos...my guess is that it will be substantially more advanced and powerful (regardless of unified shaders or not). There seems to be something about the way it and cell work together that will have us surprised in the end. Or so it seems.

Ok, RSX, a card which the Nvidia president himself said shares the same architecture and philosphy as G70 but faster, and we know its faster trhan the 7800 GTX in terms of clock, 125 Mhz Faster, with a lower memory bandwidth. TurboCache and flexIO connection to Cell. the inner workings of the card are the same as G70, what more do you expect, a G72 or G80 as the RSX? LOL at substantially more advanced and powerful LOL LOL. please let me bookmark this!!! LOL

 

[Edge]

Who needs G80, when G70 is more than powerful enough? Pakpassion, give it up, you are on a mission to no where convincing no one of anything. All you're showing is your insecurities, and your ego tied up in a console. Time to grow up.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I've got a cold. I blame it on this thread.

*sneezes on this thread

 

[pakpassion]

Who needs G80, when G70 is more than powerful enough? Pakpassion, give it up, you are on a mission to no where convincing no one of anything. All you're showing is your insecurities, and your ego tied up in a console. Time to grow up.

I just posted a topic from IGN. no need to get jelous , thier just consoles, not ur pets

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Comparison

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/662/662656p1.html


PS3 Developed version(development started first) Video: http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/761/761163/vid_1297574.html


Xbox 360 Developed Version(development started soon afterwards) Video: http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/772/772076/vid_1297578.html

I do not know how old each version is and how close it is to final version but in videos provided, the PS3 video has better lighting, reflectiveness (more shinyness on buildings, windows and mechs), self-shadow, particles, building destruction and bump-mapping (most noticable on on wing-like units) but Xbox360 video has more smoke-trail effects. Environment polygon count seems similar and mechs are so complicated it is hard to notice difference if such difference exists.

I do not know why Xbox360 video is almost monochrome but I like such art-style and it has more dramatic look than colorful PS3 version. Also, less colors in environment makes it easier to focus on good-looking Mechs instead of buildings with many shiny windows, less confusing to the eyes.

However, it is likely that both versions will surely be changed by release, no? So might not be sure reflection of final graphics.

 

[Hardknock]

As for PS2, there are many examples where high flops rating was useful like physics, animation, particles, high polygon count, etc... however, existence of many poor performing games such as GTA series was because of poor utilization of hardware by some developers.

No, just no. The PS2(despite having the highest FLOP rating) had by far the worst physics, animation, polygon counts, and AI of the current gen consoles. The Xbox CPU being a Pentium 3 and having more Mhz and general purpose processing power(but having a lower FLOP rating) was far better suited for these tasks and it showed.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why on earth is this being revisited, when every even moderately educated gamer knows AS A SYSTEM XB had more Flops than PS2? PS2's CPU had to do a lot of graphical work that XB's GPU handled, so higher CPU Flops on PS2 didn't mean more useable flops for non-graphics game code.

Will the PS2 vs XB arguments never end??