The definitive console specs thread.

Bigus Dickus said:
Note that those numbers are talking about GPU performance only... PS3 may have a potential advantage in the CPU department assuming developers can tap the raw processing power that is there. GPU<->CPU interactions may also be more beneficial on PS3, but with NDA's on the Sony side I'm not sure if we'll ever get a definitive answer to that. And the RSX is a very capable processor in its own right, with advantages over the Xenos chip in some areas (and vice versa).

PS3 also adds hi-def movie player, standard HDD, open Linux, and some networking capabilities... albeit at a higher price.

Mind you, the 360 is a great machine and I'm enjoying the hell out of mine, but I don't think you can look at the graphics spec list above and declare that MS released the superior console spec wise a year earlier than Sony.

For the money, maybe... for being a year earlier and still cheaper... I'm starting to agree. But what will really matter in the end is the games, meaning the deals MS and Sony can sign with developers and the talent of the guys actually utilizing the power to produce games.
Click to expand...

I'm basing my opinion on the PS3 games we have seen so far (both released and in development), not those numbers. Those numbers are pretty much useless.

The thing is, multiplatform games look worse and run at a lower framerate on PS3 at this point. I don't know if that will change in the future, but the fact that this is even the case is pretty disappointing. The PS3 exclusive games we have seen so far look worse overall compared to what we are seeing on 360 IMO. PS3 seems to be playing catch up. If the system had a clear edge hardware-wise, I would have attributed this situation to a lack of familiarity with the hardware, but that doesn't seem to be the main source of the problem.

I didn't expect they would release a year later with a system that seems to be bandwidth limited, has less memory (available), an inferior GPU and so on. Seems pretty underwhelming to say the least.

HDD aside, all those features you mention are not game related and some of them are adding a lot to the manufacturing cost of the system. I'd rather get a better (game) system for that extra cost than a "hi-def movie player".

All in all, it's still a pretty powerful system, and who knows, maybe it actually has the edge visually after all it's said and done. But right now, with Sony holding back as far as showing PS3 games in development, it's a pretty disappointing picture.

Or maybe I'm just wrong and all is fine a dandy, and PS3 will blow us away during the coming years. It wouldn't be the first time.
 
RollingBalls said:
What are your thoughts on the MotorStorm demo?
Click to expand...
The great: Fun.

The good: Nice physics, lots of stuff moving on screen, neat mud, great lighting (at times).

The not so good: Backgrounds show some rough edges, some textures could be better (I think they improved this in the final Jpn version), sometimes shading/lighting look a little flat.
 
On the 360, I'd say almost entirely yes, assuming the CPU has enough horsepower to handle the physics and AI demands of the engine. On the PS3, I'd say mostly yes, with a little fog over the question of just how much CELL-RSX interaction there might be a couple of years down the road. I get the feeling that developers are using CELL early to overcome some of the, erm, shortcomings of the RSX chip... once developers have a better handle on how to work around stuff to do ordinary things well, we might see a few extraordinary things.

There's still just a bit of unexplored territory on the 360 side as well with tesselator, memexport, cache locking, etc., but I get the feeling that this will be more limited in usefulness... but I'd love to be proven wrong!
 
Jacob said:
I'm basing my opinion on the PS3 games we have seen so far (both released and in development), not those numbers. Those numbers are pretty much useless.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and I completely agree. Even with some outstanding examples of PS3 graphics out there, for the most part I think what the PS3 has shown so far, vs. what the 360 has offered for a year, is... 'meh'. Not bad, by any means, but I think a lot of people were expecting the PS3 - a significantly more expensive console, with the hyped CELL processor, a GPU architecture very familiar to developers (at least those with PC experience, and at the least one with a much more friendly learning curve than the PS2), and an extra year of game development time - to have some truly knockout launch titles.

I don't think that has proven to be the case. Many still hang on to the hope that the CELL and CELL/RSX learning curves will live up to the year ago hype and expectations in the long run, and though I'm not sure how realistic that is the possibility is still there. Spec wise, the PS3 does have some things in its corner, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 
Bigus Dickus said:
with the hyped CELL processor, a GPU architecture very familiar to developers (at least those with PC experience, and at the least one with a much more friendly learning curve than the PS2).
Click to expand...
That's actually quite a contradiction. Those PC developers who understand RSX haven't got a clue about Cell! And those PS2 devs who are better experienced to understand Cell don't have the know-how with SM3.0 GPUs. Most developers are going to have a shortfalling in understanding in one or other departments.
 
Its really difficult to nail down each console's spec's, especially when it come's to the PS3. We have all seen/read/heard about developers doing crazy things with Cell. Polygon generation, pixel/vertex shading, Ray Tracing ( Warhawk ) and in the generations ahead developers are only to use Cell more and more, so do we factor Cell into the equasion when talking about PS3's polygon set-up rate? Do we include Cell in PS3's shading abilities? The same also applies to 360, Xenon can assist Xenos in graphics tasks aswel, and that like with PS3 affects 360's spec's.

Specs, while there all fun to have a nice civil debate over are pointless. Just look at PS2 as a example, go and play GT4, SOTC or God Of War 2 and the specs say those games should'nt be running on PS2.

The next couple of years are going to be very, very exciting :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jacob said:
The great: Fun.

The good: Nice physics, lots of stuff moving on screen, neat mud, great lighting (at times).

The not so good: Backgrounds show some rough edges, some textures could be better (I think they improved this in the final Jpn version), sometimes shading/lighting look a little flat.
Click to expand...

Heres a quick reminder of how the Final Motorstorm look's :D



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cyan
Play on your PC as if it was a console, on Linux, Windows, etc.
Replies
1
Views
265
Cyan
Cyan
R
Let's discuss the ways the future console architectures could potentially improve in efficiency
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Miniature Kaiju
M
D
Video Game Console Cooling - A Hot Topic (pun kind of intended).
Replies
14
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
15K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Globalisateur
Checkerboard Rendering in Dark Souls Remastered
Replies
10
Views
3K
Johnny Awesome
J
Back
Top