Why the Nitpicking Desperation here to prove PS3 much more
- Thread starter gosh
- Start date
- Status
My Observation is otherwise
I find selected people FUD'ing Sony's technologies given the latter's track record. In general, Xenos discussions are more balanced.
The nitpickings you referred to are due to a lack of in-depth, official documentation on Xenos and Cell, so people tend to zoom down to the specifics. Hopefully if the scope is limited, we can arrive at some "reasonable" closure within this forum. Because the technologies are complex, multiple uncoordinated threads were started to fine-tune the understanding. That's just normal.
I thank Ken Kutaragi for his unrelentless pursue for his own Cell and Blue-Ray future. And ATI for their ingenuity in Xenos. There's no point putting either of them down.
I find selected people FUD'ing Sony's technologies given the latter's track record. In general, Xenos discussions are more balanced.
The nitpickings you referred to are due to a lack of in-depth, official documentation on Xenos and Cell, so people tend to zoom down to the specifics. Hopefully if the scope is limited, we can arrive at some "reasonable" closure within this forum. Because the technologies are complex, multiple uncoordinated threads were started to fine-tune the understanding. That's just normal.
I thank Ken Kutaragi for his unrelentless pursue for his own Cell and Blue-Ray future. And ATI for their ingenuity in Xenos. There's no point putting either of them down.
Given that Sony initially intended that PS3 could be powered only by the CELL and then later on adding the RSX gives me a reason to believe it is not as stellar as the accompanying hype. :|Sonic said:
No, neither is Xbox 360 powerful than PS3.Edge said:
EwQroach said:Nope! only my butt has true 360 blast processing
seismologist
Regular
I've noticed more desperation from X360 camp saying that difference in power wont matter.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I think that's called reality.
No matter which is deemed "more powerful" they are so much closer this gen than last gen, that the difference will not be noticeable on screen. It will come down to artists, and who can create the best looking games.
No matter which is deemed "more powerful" they are so much closer this gen than last gen, that the difference will not be noticeable on screen. It will come down to artists, and who can create the best looking games.
mckmas8808
Legend
serenity said:
See guys this is exactly what we are talking about right here. This is an ignorant post. No sense of understanding at all. Use the search button chap maybe you'll learn something.
patsu said:
Oh my friend there is alot of information on the CELL. Understanding it is another issue.
There's so much more information on the CELL than any other chip (GPU or CPU wise) going into any next-gen system.Tap In said:I agree that BOTH the PS3 and X360 will be so close to real world performance that it's not even funny. Except as has been noted the MSAA HDR on X360 may make a little IQ difference in the 1st gen.
But... it is fun discussing all of the potential of each.... when it's done with open minds and when not taken too seriously.
Of course, it isn't enough to insist that both will be "so close", but you just had to give X360 a little more hard sell.
Perhaps "nitpicking desperation" comes from both camps, but it is quite obvious that a few here (even in this thread alone) seem to think that it must be only coming from the PS3 side.
Titanio said:Tap In said:
I like how the "exception" to the "both will be the same argument" favours X360
Depending on how Cell works out with respect to vertex processing and GPU communcation and so forth..that could be the key to putting more significant distance between the two consoles. I remember how people thought it would be the ultimate dream scenario for PS3, graphics wise, if Cell did all vertex processing and left a fully dedicated GPU to do all pixel shading. The truth of the matter is that the spec has emerged little different from that - the GPU's power is overwhelmingly invested in pixel shading (enough that there's as much if not more there than X360's GPU could use if it were to fully dedicate itself to pixel shading, at least on paper). And obviously as per the original favoured scenario, vertex processing is certainly an area where Cell can provide.
The AA situation on X360 is no doubt a plus point, but it seems far more "nitpicky" when you look at some AA-less PS3 games. A significant shading difference would be more substantial by comparison, IMO.
I don't see how 1 CELL can handle all of the vertex processing and also do great physics and AI and other CPU taxing stuff...especially working with Next gen hardware.
Had Sony used another CELL processor in PS3, that would have made it very sexy(and a very expensive beast). But I gues beggers can't be choosers...
-Josh378
I don't know what the Nitpicking Desperation the OP is talking about. I haven't seen any nitpicking really - only people trying to understand the systems in fine detail.
Personally, I think XB360 may have an IQ advantage; AA with everything. But I'm expecting PS3 will trump XB360 in terms of 'stuff' later on, physics and animation and 'stuff', as I'm thinking Cell is pretty tasty and they've got buckets of system bandwidth to play with. If they're not filling it up with AA'd backbuffers and such they can fit in all sorts of fun things. I want my virtual bathroom!!
I don't know that the difference between systems will be amazingly noticeable. I don't see much diffrence between PS2 and XB
Personally, I think XB360 may have an IQ advantage; AA with everything. But I'm expecting PS3 will trump XB360 in terms of 'stuff' later on, physics and animation and 'stuff', as I'm thinking Cell is pretty tasty and they've got buckets of system bandwidth to play with. If they're not filling it up with AA'd backbuffers and such they can fit in all sorts of fun things. I want my virtual bathroom!!
I don't know that the difference between systems will be amazingly noticeable. I don't see much diffrence between PS2 and XB
mckmas8808
Legend
Well pointing you to links would that me forever to find so let me just say this. Sony was shooting high. Very high with the CELL. They initially wanted the 1 terabyte of floating point power. Well as time and money went on at this point in time getting a chip like that would take extra time, would be too costly, and the PS3 would be too big if they were to use 4 CELL chips (Kinda like how MS is using 3 chips).
And instead of using a CELL chip as a GPU, they decided early in the stage of development that using a Nvidia GPU with all their tools would be a better fit. Along with plenty of other reason to go with a dedicated GPU.
So in the end Sony going with a GPU is not them saying "Our CELL chip kind of sucks". Not at all. Its much deeper than that.
- Status
