What Is It That Makes The "PS3" More Powerful Than The "360"?

M

MR.KAZ

Lurker
I must admit,I like the way the disk loads like it does.
I've heard the "PS3" is considered to be a "Powerhouse".Why?
 
It's bunk!

ps3 uses cell processor with 7 dsp's (ppe's I think sony calls em) . xbox uses basically a triple core processor. Both have similar clock times and both are similar in size. In theory the ps3's cell processor's 7 dsps being more specialized should be more efficient, good in video playback seemingly useless in games. The only exception I could think of would be for collision type physics. The 360's processor can handle 6 threads, which apparently is perfect for video games. Most of the launch games used 1 - 2 threads (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've read up on all this) so the difference would have been ever so slight between th

"In fact, if properly structured and coded for SPE acceleration, physics code could very well run faster on the PlayStation 3 than on the Xbox 360 thanks to the more specialized nature of the SPE hardware. Not to mention that physics acceleration is particularly parallelizable, making it a perfect match for an array of 7 SPEs. " that quote is from anandtech 6 months or so before either system was released.

The 360's processor can handle 6 threads, which apparently is perfect for video games. Most of the launch games used 1 - 2 threads (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've read up on all this) so the difference would have been ever so slight between the two systems initially and snowballed downhill ever since.

A freakin' cell processor is insane to code for. Compare ports between the two systems for yourselves. I've always though multi platform games looked better on the 360. The multiple core processor is super similar to pc processors so porting (and coding in general) is a breeze. A game developer for pc should be abloe to pick up and go with very little effort when coding for a 360, while the ps3 is a different story. Don't get me wrong, the cell processor is the way of the future, even intel has projected this, but as of now, for our purposes it's a hinderance and holding sony back a bit.

The other difference in the GPU. If I'm not mistaken sony has one that's a bit faster but it doesn't do the job the ati gpu does in the xbox.

The misconception of sony being a power house probably comes with the innovative cell processor, slightly faster gpu, and the 24 ish GB storage capacity of the blu ray. With out installing games on the hard drive (and sony does to an extent) a blu ray has a lot of extra data to seek through. Compare load times. It's a lot quicker to look through 9 gb of game than it is to look through 24 gig. I'm sure people with both systems has noticed the longer load time a ps3 has.

So yeah, as far as a ps3 being a powerhouse it's all in how you look at it. hard drives are typically bigger, lots more bells and whistles, but I believe microsoft spent their money wiser as far as arcitecture is concerned making in my mind's eye a better (and cheaper) system.
 
targetrasp said:
It's bunk!

ps3 uses cell processor with 7 dsp's (ppe's I think sony calls em) . xbox uses basically a triple core processor. Both have similar clock times and both are similar in size. In theory the ps3's cell processor's 7 dsps being more specialized should be more efficient, good in video playback seemingly useless in games. The only exception I could think of would be for collision type physics. The 360's processor can handle 6 threads, which apparently is perfect for video games. Most of the launch games used 1 - 2 threads (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've read up on all this) so the difference would have been ever so slight between th

"In fact, if properly structured and coded for SPE acceleration, physics code could very well run faster on the PlayStation 3 than on the Xbox 360 thanks to the more specialized nature of the SPE hardware. Not to mention that physics acceleration is particularly parallelizable, making it a perfect match for an array of 7 SPEs. " that quote is from anandtech 6 months or so before either system was released.

The 360's processor can handle 6 threads, which apparently is perfect for video games. Most of the launch games used 1 - 2 threads (I'm pretty sure, but it's been a while since I've read up on all this) so the difference would have been ever so slight between the two systems initially and snowballed downhill ever since.

A freakin' cell processor is insane to code for. Compare ports between the two systems for yourselves. I've always though multi platform games looked better on the 360. The multiple core processor is super similar to pc processors so porting (and coding in general) is a breeze. A game developer for pc should be abloe to pick up and go with very little effort when coding for a 360, while the ps3 is a different story. Don't get me wrong, the cell processor is the way of the future, even intel has projected this, but as of now, for our purposes it's a hinderance and holding sony back a bit.

The other difference in the GPU. If I'm not mistaken sony has one that's a bit faster but it doesn't do the job the ati gpu does in the xbox.

The misconception of sony being a power house probably comes with the innovative cell processor, slightly faster gpu, and the 24 ish GB storage capacity of the blu ray. With out installing games on the hard drive (and sony does to an extent) a blu ray has a lot of extra data to seek through. Compare load times. It's a lot quicker to look through 9 gb of game than it is to look through 24 gig. I'm sure people with both systems has noticed the longer load time a ps3 has.

So yeah, as far as a ps3 being a powerhouse it's all in how you look at it. hard drives are typically bigger, lots more bells and whistles, but I believe microsoft spent their money wiser as far as arcitecture is concerned making in my mind's eye a better (and cheaper) system.
Click to expand...

Can we try this again in English?
 
Why does it matter? It is all about the games not the power of systems. My Gameboy Pocket gives me just as much fun as my PS2. Miles apart when it comes to raw power.
 
it doesnt break....thats why its the powerhouse.

id rather have the consistent, decent quarterback year after year than the guy who throws 100000 touchdowns in only 46% of the games...
 
yeah sorry, English :)

Metaphorically speaking the ps3 is like a ferrari with a 4 year old driver while the 360 is Danica Patrick in a Mustang Gt. The ferrari is capable of more (or at least should be) But the programming is going to have to grow into the software.

A cell processor (what sony runs) is 5 to 10 years too soon for its usefulness, as of now they're too specialized to be utilized more effictively than a multi core processor in computers and video games.
 
Sorry, but are you for or against the PS3 or 360? This doesn't look like it will go in a good direction and may end up in a flame war.
 
If you're talking about me I have no preference. I tried to explain the difference in the processors without bias. As far as getting back to the original topic my opinion was / is the ps3 isn't more powerful, It has some innovative hardware too far ahead of it's time actually detracting from the machine's capability.
 
I was just saying it would be nice to have a little bit of the good old console war type debates, but not flaming. This board could use a little spark like that, everything is so tame these days {which isn't bad either, but debates are nice sometimes}.
 
Guys,I wasn't trying to make a Federal Case out of it,I just want to learn more about a console with a couple of games that cost me a little north of $1,000.
I may as well learn about it's other functions,it makes the cost a little more worth it. :lol

God Bless,
Kaz
 
Well Kaz another thing to consider is console reliabilty the 360 is much more likely to malfunction then the PS3 with the figures have been hearing were around 45% of the consoles are getting the ring of death. Also the PS3 has had a price drop $300 which makes it the same price as 120G Xbox 360 if it was me I would go with the PS3 since you get extra bells and whistle like a blu-ray player and the console is alot lot less likely to break on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top