Ps3 Or Xbox 360?

Which system will you buy?

  • PS3

    Votes: 38 31.4%

  • Xbox 360

    Votes: 47 38.8%

  • Neither, my computer kicks their ass.

    Votes: 36 29.8%
  • Total voters
    121
i am a major fan of the xbox, i used to live online playing halo 2 but then i got my computer. The newest problem with the xbox 360 is that it only uses a basic dvd-rom drive. This means that developers will have to put there games on more than one cd, this also means that there will be much slower load times. I was watching a show and they mentioned this and i was quite dissapointed. I am starting to lean towards the PS3 just a little bit now.
 
ow,.. you mean those blu-ray disks they want to use in the ps3?
we'll dont thinkt they use it for improved performance or better games.
they only use for those discs is because no-one can copy/rip them at the moment.
(and i think it will stay that way for a while)
 
lol guess so. i tried to win an xbox360 but have yet to succeed. one of those bottle cap games is giving away an xbox 360 every 10 minutes. i must win!

i'd probably sell it when i won it...and use the cash for my PC.
 
the xbox 360 has 3 CPUs, will have the most advanced graphics card to date...and will cost around 400. while getting a top of the line cpu, ( which still wouldnt be able to match the xbox's processing power) , would cost me over 2k.. hmm... -_- and the best thing about consoles, u know the games made for it WILL RUN. theres no wondering if u are going to need more ram, or a better gfx card, etc.
 
Talent said:
Nintendo = for children
Xbox = Multiplayer
PS2 = Creativity
Click to expand...

When will people understand that nintendo is not a children system

I am getting a revolution personnaly, free online, you can download classic fist party games from NES SNES and N64

Now that nintendo is slowly recovering thier 3rd party support (capcom re4 for example) they will have your "mature sex games" that some of you guys seem to be obssesed with....

and it will also be the cheapest system to develop for, sony's blue rays cost a lot more....its might drive away 3rd party support, and then sony will not have any mario and samus and link and all those games that nintendo relyed on when they had barely any 3rd parties developing for the n64 (because cartridges were more expensive than cds and this made the ps1 more developer freindly) if sonly loses third party they have bairly any first party games and will die (not the company, just the console)

because oif blue ray, ps2 games will probably be more than the usually 50$

If i had to choose one though, i would go with xbox 360
 
I wouldnt get either.They will probablly become outdated by new and improved pc hardware in a matter of months,thats why i LOVE pc,s! :)
 
Shambree said:
I wouldnt get either.They will probablly become outdated by new and improved pc hardware in a matter of months,thats why i LOVE pc,s! :)
Click to expand...

PC's grow better with age, consoles don't.... nothing shall replace my trusty PC.
 
but still.. the xbox is running halo2 better as the average Pc will run it when it's released for pc ;) so, consoles dont need to grow with age :P
 
I personally have a list of 3 companies that I try to avoid helping financially in any way...:
1. WALMART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: @$*%)#(%^#)(*&$
2. Disney
3. Microsoft <- reason why I won't buy an XBOX (and they bought the DOA series and made that horrific beach volleyball game... :()

and HP is making a bidding for a fourth company...
 
Praetor said:
Neither. While they may have immense computational firepower ... having to play games on a low resolution, low refresh, high-dotpitch screen from far away just isnt appealing :)
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with this..... If I had to pick one I would go with the PS3.
 
dciscouts said:
I personally have a list of 3 companies that I try to avoid helping financially in any way...:
1. WALMART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:: @$*%)#(%^#)(*&$
2. Disney
3. Microsoft <- reason why I won't buy an XBOX (and they bought the DOA series and made that horrific beach volleyball game...

and HP is making a bidding for a fourth company...
Click to expand...

I like the way you think! :P
 
i know the XBOX360 will have 2 versions, 1 will be a lower version which will require memory cards, and that will cost $199, and the one that includes a hard drive, special edition case, and a few other things will cost $299.

And i'd rather get the XBOX over PS3, since im a real big Halo fan :P
 
Xbox 360
Suggested retail price: $399.99*

If you're a serious gamer looking for the ultimate console, the search ends here. Fully loaded, it's the unsurpassed gaming and entertainment experience right out of the box.

We're talking a 20GB detachable hard drive for downloading content and saving games, plus a headset and a wireless controller for instant Xbox Live action. That's on top of the console itself, which not only plays games in high definition (HD) with 720p/1080i output and full surround sound, but can stream digital photos and music from your Windows® XP or Windows® Media Center Edition 2005 PC. Xbox 360 delivers the ultimate digital entertainment and gaming experience.

With its built-in Ethernet port and a free level of the online service, Xbox 360 instantly connects you to Xbox Live. Every Xbox 360 owner is a Silver subscriber—just plug the Ethernet cable into your existing broadband connection and join a global community of more than two million members. Set up a Gamer Profile, visit the Xbox Live Marketplace, even send voice messages—and that's just the beginning. Upgrade to Xbox Live Gold service and experience multiplayer games and tournaments, intelligent matchmaking, voice communication via the Xbox 360 Headset, and much more.

Comes with:

- Xbox 360 Wireless Controller
- Xbox 360 Hard Drive (20GB)
- Xbox 360 Media Remote
- Xbox 360 Headset
- Xbox 360 Component HD-AV Cable


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xbox 360 Core
Suggested retail price: $299.99*

The Xbox 360 Core system is everything you need to hit the ground running. Plug in the console and the controller and you're playing. Then decide what extras you add and when—it's expandable to the full Xbox 360 experience.

Comes with:

- Xbox 360 Wired controller
- Xbox 360 Standard AV Cable
more info here

FOR FUTURE REFRENCE!!!!!!!!! THE XBOX 360 HAS !!!!ONE 1!!!! 3.2GHz TRIPLE CORE processor, GET IT RIGHT!!!!

Xbox 360 System Performance Specifications

Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
1 MB L2 cache

CPU Game Math Performance 9.6 billion dot product operations per second

Custom ATI Graphics Processor 10 MB of embedded DRAM
48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
Unified shader architecture

Polygon Performance 500 million triangles per second

Pixel Fill Rate 16 gigasamples per second fill rate using 4x MSAA

Shader Performance 48 billion shader operations per second

Memory 512 MB of 700 MHz GDDR3 RAM
Unified memory architecture

Memory Bandwidth 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
21.6 GB/s front-side bus

Overall System Floating-Point Performance 1 teraflop

Storage Detachable and upgradeable 20GB hard drive
12x dual-layer DVD-ROM
Memory Unit support starting at 64 MB

I/O Support for up to four wireless game controllers
Three USB 2.0 ports
Two memory unit slots

Optimized for Online Instant, out-of-the-box access to Xbox Live features with broadband service, including Xbox Live Marketplace for downloadable content, gamer profile for digital identity, and voice chat to talk to friends while playing games, watching movies, or listening to music
Built-in Ethernet port
Wi-Fi ready: 802.11a, 802.11b, and 802.11g
Video camera ready

Digital Media Support Support for DVD-Video, DVD-ROM, DVD-R/RW, DVD+R/RW, CD-DA, CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, WMA CD, MP3 CD, JPEG Photo CD
Ability to stream media from portable music devices, digital cameras and Windows XP-based PCs
Ability to rip music to the Xbox 360 hard drive
Custom playlists in every game
Built-in Media Center Extender for Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
Interactive, full-screen 3-D visualizers

High-Definition Game Support All games supported at 16:9, 720p, or 1080i, with anti-aliasing
Standard-definition and high-definition video output supported

Audio Multi-channel surround sound output
Supports 48KHz 16-bit audio
320 independent decompression channels
32-bit audio processing
Over 256 audio channels

Physical Specs Height: 83 mm
Width: 309 mm
Depth: 258 mm
Weight: 7.7 lbs.

System Orientation Stands vertically or horizontally

Customizable Face Plates Interchangeable to personalize the console
 
main thing i wanted to state was this part:
"FOR FUTURE REFRENCE!!!!!!!!! THE XBOX 360 HAS !!!!ONE 1!!!! 3.2GHz TRIPLE CORE processor, GET IT RIGHT!!!!" cause everyone kept saying it had 3 processors.... but the thing i got get is why that kind of processor... you dont multi task with a gam consol
 
i thought this was interesting article. dont have a link cuz this anandtech article was pulled cuz author was afraid of them tracking him..whoever they are

Microsoft's Xbox 360 &amp; Sony's PlayStation 3 - Examples of Poor CPU Performance

Date: June 29th, 2005 Author: Anand Lal Shimpi

"In our last article we had a fairly open-ended discussion about many of the challenges facing both of the
recently announced next-generation game consoles. We discussed misconceptions about the Cell processor
and its ability to accelerate physics calculations, as well as touched on the GPUs of both platforms. In
the end, both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are much closer competitors than you would think based on
first impressions.

The Xbox 360's Xenon CPU features more general purpose cores than the PlayStation 3 (3 vs. 1), however
game developers will most likely only be using one of those cores for the majority of their calculations,
leveling the playing field considerably.

The Cell processor derives much of its power from its array of 7 SPEs (Synergistic Processing Elements),
however as we discovered in our last article, their purpose is far more specialized than we had thought.
Speaking with Epic Games' head developer, Tim Sweeney, he provided a much more balanced view of what sorts
of tasks could take advantage of the Cell's SPE array.

The GPUs of the next-generation platforms also proved to be quite interesting. In Part I we speculated as
to the true nature of NVIDIA's RSX in the PS3, concluding that it's quite likely little more than a higher
clocked G70 GPU. We will expand on that discussion a bit more in this article. We also looked at Xenos,
the Xbox 360's GPU and characterized it as equivalent to a very flexible 24-pipe R420. Despite the
inclusion of the 10MB of embedded DRAM, Xenos and RSX ended up being quite similar in our expectations for
performance; and that pretty much summarized all of our findings - the two consoles, although implementing
very different architectures, ended up being so very similar.

So we've concluded that the two platforms will probably end up performing very similarly, but there was
one very important element excluded from the first article: a comparison to present-day PC architectures.
The reason a comparison to PC architectures is important is because it provides an evaluation point to
gauge the expected performance of these next-generation consoles. We've heard countless times that these
new consoles would offer better gaming performance than anything we've had on the PC, or anything we would
have for a matter of years. Now it's time to actually put those claims to the test, and that's exactly
what we did.

Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers who have had first hand experience
writing code for both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked
them for nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think of these new consoles? Are they
really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing performance we've been lead to believe they have? The answer is
actually quite frequently found in history; as with anything, you get what you pay for.

Learning from Generation X The original Xbox console marked a very important step in the evolution of
gaming consoles - it was the first console that was little more than a Windows PC.

It featured a 733MHz Pentium III processor with a 128KB L2 cache, paired up with a modified version of
NVIDIA's nForce chipset (modified to support Intel's Pentium III bus instead of the Athlon XP it was
designed for). The nForce chipset featured an integrated GPU, codenamed the NV2A, offering performance
very similar to that of a GeForce3. The system had a 5X PC DVD drive and an 8GB IDE hard drive, and all
of the controllers interfaced to the console using USB cables with a proprietary connector.

For the most part, game developers were quite pleased with the original Xbox. It offered them a much more
powerful CPU, GPU and overall platform than anything had before. But as time went on, there were
definitely limitations that developers ran into with the first Xbox.

One of the biggest limitations ended up being the meager 64MB of memory that the system shipped with.
Developers had asked for 128MB and the motherboard even had positions silk screened for an additional
64MB, but in an attempt to control costs the final console only shipped with 64MB of memory.

The next problem is that the NV2A GPU ended up not having the fill rate and memory bandwidth necessary to
drive high resolutions, which kept the Xbox from being used as a HD console.

Although Intel outfitted the original Xbox with a Pentium III/Celeron hybrid in order to improve
performance yet maintain its low cost, at 733MHz that quickly became a performance bottleneck for more
complex games after the console's introduction.

The combination of GPU and CPU limitations made 30 fps a frame rate target for many games, while simpler
titles were able to run at 60 fps. Split screen play on Halo would even stutter below 30 fps depending on
what was happening on screen, and that was just a first-generation title. More experience with the Xbox
brought creative solutions to the limitations of the console, but clearly most game developers had a wish
list of things they would have liked to have seen in the Xbox successor. Similar complaints were levied
against the PlayStation 2, but in some cases they were more extreme (e.g. its 4MB frame buffer).

Given that consoles are generally evolutionary, taking lessons learned in previous generations and
delivering what the game developers want in order to create the next-generation of titles, it isn't a
surprise to see that a number of these problems are fixed in the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

One of the most important changes with the new consoles is that system memory has been bumped from 64MB on
the original Xbox to a whopping 512MB on both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. For the Xbox, that's a
factor of 8 increase, and over 12x the total memory present on the PlayStation 2.

The other important improvement with the next-generation of consoles is that the GPUs have been improved
tremendously. With 6 - 12 month product cycles, it's no surprise that in the past 4 years GPUs have
become much more powerful. By far the biggest upgrade these new consoles will offer, from a graphics
standpoint, is the ability to support HD resolutions.

There are obviously other, less-performance oriented improvements such as wireless controllers and more
ubiquitous multi-channel sound support. And with Sony's PlayStation 3, disc capacity goes up thanks to
their embracing the Blu-ray standard.

But then we come to the issue of the CPUs in these next-generation consoles, and the level of improvement
they offer. Both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 offer multi-core CPUs to supposedly usher in a new
era of improved game physics and reality. Unfortunately, as we have found out, the desire to bring multi-
core CPUs to these consoles was made a reality at the expense of performance in a very big way.

Problems with the Architecture At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is best characterized as being
quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow 2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache
(32K instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell, respectively).
Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled
Pentium 4. The Xenon CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the Xbox 360 smaller than a single
core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the
size of the 90nm Prescott die.

IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point performance-per-dollar that the
Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war, comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing
power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has
already been lost.

Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon CPU is about twice that of the
733MHz processor in the first Xbox. Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the
next 4 - 5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective, floating point
multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a Pentium 4.

The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order core also happens to be very deeply
pipelined, apparently with a branch predictor that's not the best in the business. In the end, you get
what you pay for, and with such a small core, it's no surprise that performance isn't anywhere near the
Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.

The Cell processor doesn't get off the hook just because it only uses a single one of these horribly slow
cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly useless in the majority of situations, making it little more
than a waste of die space.

We mentioned before that collision detection is able to be accelerated on the SPEs of Cell, despite being
fairly branch heavy. The lack of a branch predictor in the SPEs apparently isn't that big of a deal,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top