Now that the dust has settled after many years, and since I recently brought this issue in the forum and a mod told me that it would be better to start a thread on the subject I finally decided to do so.
In times of the PS3 and Xbox 360, the typical speech was something like that PS3 was the most powerful console and despite multiplatform games saying otherwise if you brought up the subject of it being the other way around, you could hear people telling you something like "yeah right".
There were also times in which the graphical power was given, mainly, by the CPU, apparently. The Cell CPU was giving the edge to the PS3 and in short, the PS3 was the most powerful console of the past generation, the Blu-ray allowed the PS3 to have better graphics, blablabla.
Tbh, every time I saw a graphics comparison where the X360 had the edge I wasn't surprised. In fact I remember sites like DF saying two versions of a game where equal when in fact they weren't because X360 textures were slightly (not by much but there was a difference) sharper.
It was always about the CELL and the proof is in the exclusives thing. I wonder though what 1st party Sony developers could achieve on the X360. Killzone 2 for instance was praised as the best thing since the sliced bread, technically wise. I remember thinking it was muddy looking and dull and blurred.
Sony were defining the X360 as Xbox 1.5 and saying that their system was like 2 or 3 times more powerful than the X360, you can still find those news if you look for them.
Back in December 2005, a MS representative, Bryan Lee, said this.
"With Sony if they do hit the specs which they've said they'll have there's a debate, there's a couple of categories where they outdo us, there's several categories where we outdo them. On balance I think most people who study the space will tell you our system is slightly more powerful then theirs from a hardware standpoint. But for the purposes of this discussion I think it's fair to say they're both Ferraris".
In times of the PS3 and Xbox 360, the typical speech was something like that PS3 was the most powerful console and despite multiplatform games saying otherwise if you brought up the subject of it being the other way around, you could hear people telling you something like "yeah right".
There were also times in which the graphical power was given, mainly, by the CPU, apparently. The Cell CPU was giving the edge to the PS3 and in short, the PS3 was the most powerful console of the past generation, the Blu-ray allowed the PS3 to have better graphics, blablabla.
Tbh, every time I saw a graphics comparison where the X360 had the edge I wasn't surprised. In fact I remember sites like DF saying two versions of a game where equal when in fact they weren't because X360 textures were slightly (not by much but there was a difference) sharper.
It was always about the CELL and the proof is in the exclusives thing. I wonder though what 1st party Sony developers could achieve on the X360. Killzone 2 for instance was praised as the best thing since the sliced bread, technically wise. I remember thinking it was muddy looking and dull and blurred.
Sony were defining the X360 as Xbox 1.5 and saying that their system was like 2 or 3 times more powerful than the X360, you can still find those news if you look for them.
Back in December 2005, a MS representative, Bryan Lee, said this.
"With Sony if they do hit the specs which they've said they'll have there's a debate, there's a couple of categories where they outdo us, there's several categories where we outdo them. On balance I think most people who study the space will tell you our system is slightly more powerful then theirs from a hardware standpoint. But for the purposes of this discussion I think it's fair to say they're both Ferraris".
