WTH IGN?! They posted the spec analysis from Major Nelson!!

I dunno, but since I can observe 1+ Gigapixel/s fill rate whilst rendering stuff on stencil buffer on NV2A I'm sure RSX can do much butter than 5 Gigapixel/s

 

I cant believe some of you, of course this is just PR BS, but Sony did exactly the same at their PC. I mean now everybody thinks that the Ps3 is twice as powerfull as the Xbox 360 just because it has double the FLops in its Cpu.....

So, its ok if its SONY Pr BS and their "Xbox 1.5" comments, but if MS plays the same game its "Omg what a bunch of jerks" ?

I guess it was true then, Sony can show pre rendered suff of a sequel to a game that sucks and everybody gets happy and Wowed....i bet if MS showed Pre Rendered stuff from say Brute Force or Blinx, and it rivaled Pixar work, i bet everybody would be hammering MS down.

Well MS is playing dirty just Like Sony now, dont see whats wrong with that, just take everything from both sides with a Glass of Salt and try to pick up the usefull info.

 

I'd like to know how many of you would be crying if the tables were turned and it was Sony putting out a rebuttal towards Microsoft.

:?

Not that I post here often but I do observe and I must say this site is very pro Sony.

 

So MS are playing Sony at their own game (and vice versa). Big deal.

It's not like any of these figures mean anything to the average clueless forumite anyway, and one companies "system bandwidth" graph is just as meaningless as the other companies "system terraflops" graph.

Don't try and find a hero and a villain in a PR shitstorm.

 

Sony's comments regard XB360 are (based on KK's interview) that it's not far removed from existing PC designs, a design that XB copied. In their terms (marketting terms perhaps) it's not a new geneation of architecture, only a new generation of components. That can be argued.

At no point have Sony said outright lies about XB360's make-up. Neither have they lied about PS3's performance in their show. They showed tech demos which they explained were running in real-time, and videos that they said were visions given over to the their content partners to create. They left that fairly ambiguous, that's true, but these MS's comments are something else.

I mean, aggragate bandwidth?!?! OR Cell only has one worthwhile processor?!

AFAIK Sony have never sent out material that says 'look how much better we are then our competitors'. They've given specs, and some question the validity of those specs (peak rates etc.). If they have, please let me know.

Making totally phoney interpretations of your competition is a new level of PR madness that I know of. I'd be as shocked/a,azed/disgusted no matter what the company.

 

This is on a completely different level, IMHO. Sony had one slide on their presentation with a direct comparison to X360 - for floating point performance. In that instance, they used a figure given by MS, and one that is easily and transparently derivable. The figure on the PS3 side was likewise transparent and derivable in the exact same way. Hence a valid comparison, even if it's only looking at one aspect of performance.

This article's comparisons are highly skewed, some featuring figures that we don't know yet how to derive. (They're taking Nvidia numbers without knowing where they're coming from, and comparing them to ATi figures, for example).

This article takes the cake as far as FUD goes. Don't be surprised to see a reaction from Sony, but realise MS made the hole much bigger than it needed to be.

 

I can't wait to see a reaction from Sony. Or NVidia...



Jawed

 

Man, MS showed the prerendered clip of Lost Odyssey in their conference

 

MS has sunk to a new low by spreading false "info" about their rivals.

 

Well I think they are both playing the same game, Sony is just little more subtle.
I hate to bring up Killzone again, but the original Killzone was touted as a Halo killer and we all know that fps-genre was dominated by Xbox, now sony comes guns plazing with ridiculous prerendered footage of this new unbelieveable Halo killer, and they do it so that some of us actually believe it, I know that's not actually bashing the opponent, but it's part of the hype game anyway. I think calling X360 as Xbox 1.5 is just as outrageous as those slides, because PS3 is going to perform pretty much in the same league.

 

They are no where in the same league. Referring to the X360 as Xbox 1.5 does not inherently diminish its performance characteristics. Sony is alluding to it being a beefed up Xbox / PC in a box etc. Those slides demonstrate that architecturally the Xbox360 is much better than the PS3 which is quite invalid.

 

Well besides Blu-Ray what's so special about PS3 hardware that justifies them saying that, But I agree the part about total system bandwith is really twisted.

 

That's obvious. The Cell is very different to existing PC designs. There's also support for more media types, more connectivity etc. So what Sony is pushing is that the PS3 is more of an entertainment hub than the 360 which really cannot be argued against given current info.

Either way, the slides are just outright misinformation. When you start publishing numbers on graphs it's in a totally different league from tongue-in-cheek remarks about the 360's resemblance to a typical PC.

 

I still haven't seen a Firewire port on PS3.

Where's everyone gonna plug their DV camcorders into the PS3 and how are they going to edit their movies, in real time?...

Jawed

 

You don't think that the graphs shown in the Sony press conference, complete with numbers showing the PS3 to have twice the "system terraflops" of Xenon were designed to give a "misleading" representation of the two systems relative strengths? They must have been, or else why else show something that according to everyone "in the know" means pretty much bugger all?

 

They weren't comparing "System terraflops" - in the introduction to CELL, they were showing how their CPU [CELL] competes in floating point performance compared to the PS2's EE, a Pentium CPU and the Xbox360's CPU. The information is publicly available, so I don't see where the problem is.

EDIT: And it wasn't terraflops either, it was all stated in GFLOPs.

 

how does x360 cpu resemble a PC when there is no cpu in existence like it or planned?

its an adaptation of an existing design.

Cell is a radical adaptation of an existing design but it is based on ideas that have existed before...


CPU innovation = tie

The RSX is much more pc part than xenos... it is basically a high spec traditional part modified for cell's bus. Xenos has NEVER been seen or done before in a pc or anywhere else...

GPU innovation = Xenos

Sony is incorrect even in their insinuation that X360 is not as revolutionary as PS3. There are things being done on each system that we all are trying to learn about because we've never seen it before.

Notwithstanding the PR aspect of all of this (MS knew they's have to fight back in ways that Sega never could) This is the most exciting console launch period (the next 13 months) ever.

 

You Sony guys are funny. I'm a big supporter of the X360 and I think what MS did was wrong, but it was no different than the lies Sony has been spreading at E3 either.

The systems are very comparable in performance, it's all going to boil down to the games (as always) and while these tactics do nothing to promote understanding of either architecture they are likely to continue for the simple reason that they work.

I mean, even many of the technically minded people on this forum actually believe that Killzone was real-time. That seems pretty naive to me. I'm still waiting for Toy Story graphics on PS2. LOL. Maybe that's why the US wanted to get Saddam so bad, he used the amazing super-computing PS2 to develop Toy Story graphics and sell them to George Lucas in return for more PS2s so that he could control all of the missiles in the US arsenal.

Seriously, the PR stuff is hilarious. At the end of the day you just have to look at what the games are actually going to be like and both platforms may as well be identical in that regard.

 

And how do you know this? That's a wild claim. There's no fair way of comparing either techs. All we have are some alpha kits, some prototypes, and a load of random tech-specs bent out of all shape.

The few facts there are (GFlops, transistor counts) are hazy at best to make any conclusions. Best guess would be they might be fairly close, or if one is going to be more powerful, it's most likely going to be PS3 (unless like MS with sod-all hardware experience you think all those SPE's are going to be next to useless ). But saying that they are very comparable in performance really needs some substantiation. Have you worked with finalized hardware and run extensive performance metrics for comparison?...

 

Is it really so difficult to grasp the fact that hyping up your own product is different to slinging mud at the competititon? I'm probably the most impartial person when it comes to consoles since the last one I owned was a SNES and I've never been a big fan of them since. But I've been taking in the E3 hype and I'm simply giving my opinion.