Some developer comments on PS3/X360 (Edge Magazine)

while the Xbox clock speed was 25% the final clockspeed. you cant judge both systems yet

 

It's not as simple as "X is better than Z". Both architectures have their strenghts.

Also, not all the details about RSX are known as we speak. So, for now speculations reigns supreme.

 

Wrong again. Developerskit = 2 * powerMac G5's running at 2Ghz and final Xbox360 cpu will run at 3.2Ghz. you do the math.

 

Xbox 360 developers should now have somewhat if not the final hardware of Xbox 360. So from here on, no excuses.

 

yes while the interview in edge was taken they were talking of 25% of the final hardware power. so this interview edge took is 2 months old

 

epic said 25% power of the final system??

 

Also the bandwidth between Cell and GPU in the devkit is whopping 5% of the final one.

 

It's not the clockspeed that was stated to be 1/3 of the final hardware, it's the overall performance of the machine. Clockspeeds and performances are not related in this case.

 

wrong again, the developers kit 2ghz * G5s vs 3 * 3.2ghz custom G5s

check the math again

 

Okay Titanio you are officially full of it. You state you didn't post any comments from ATi or Nvidia to be "fair". But you specifically quoted a comment from ATi that Alpha kits were more like "50%" of the final hardware. Hmmm, I wonder why you did that?

 

that would make the system even more powerful than the 25% clockspeed only power statement

 

because he needed an opportunity from a post like you posted to actually give that information

 

Why don't we just discuss what was quoted from the article instead of worrying about what wasn't. Can comments not be considered valid unless an opposing opinion is also presented?

 

Thank you for point that out. I didn't know that. Wow!!

You're right no excuses. And I have to ask this question. If PS3 devs will have closer to final hardware for a longer time than X360 devs will this be an advantage for Sony?

Why did MS give devs a machine thats soooo much weaker?

 

because MS had a lot of g5 chips to chose from, while Sony had just 1 or 2 Cell chips and they were all above 2.5 ghz. so CPU wise the PS3 is finished, whats not finished is the RSX which is a Console specific version of the G70 incidently because a Dual Cell would have been inefficient or else PS3 would launch at same time as Xbox 360

 

> "100 GFLOPS/s more power on PS3 than xbox360, is not a slightly difference, ITS A HUGE difference."

I agree, and that should be obvious to anyone who understands the basic of this technology, and yet you have people constantly saying the Xbox 360 is similar in power to the PS3.

Do people have to believe in dis-information to feel comfortable in the loyalty they have to a console?

Xbox 360 is an awesome powerful console, and I think it's a beautiful piece of engineering, but that does not mean I have to believe bad info about it being similar in power to the PS3, when it's not.

 

Somebody talk to the mods: it is cleaning time again

Anyways, those 2X 6800 SLIs comments he may consider that in their engine the actual performance go down a lot.

Judt one question by these quotes seems that they only(or mostly) consider PS3 more powerfull by RSX, that holds in the rest of the article

Just one question, anyone thinks that in the end all 3 consoles will render the same but at 480i, 720p,1080p, ence the difference in numbers.

 

Do you remember how much more Gflop power the Xbox CPU had than the PS2 Emotion engine?


...oh yes thats right. the PS2 emotion engine had 3 times more Gflops than the Pentium 3 733 Mhz in Xbox. did you forget that?

 

WHy don't we just lock this thread? It started out good then a bunch of people who don't know anything about computer architecture come in and act like they do.

It's the same story as with faoud... how many pages did it take to try and convince him? Not that he's actually changed his tune or anything.

It was a good start, but when it ends up like this, I douubt much of anything important will come from it.