Quake3World

zewulf wrote:Oh btw, word has it that:

1) Developers are finding some sorta bottleneck in the X360 (kinda consistent with the KIKIZO statement I quoted above).

2) The PS3 may actually be easier to develop for than the X360 this time around

And you think that anyone here is going to actually listen to this
"word" that only you have access to...... what a load of shit.....


Major Nelson says:

The Xbox 360's CPU has more general purpose processing power because it has three general purpose cores, and Cell has just one.

This is really beginning to make me angry inside. They ignore the fact that the Cell has 7 functional secondary processing cores. True, they aren't parallel CPU cores like the other IBM chips in Xbox360 and Revolution, but they still run at 3.2 GHz. If you want to measure raw processing power, which is what REALLY counts, the PS3 wins. Big. The PS3, according to Sony, can do 2.18 Teraflops. Microsoft is claiming that the Xbox360 will do 1 Teraflop. (FYI, a Teraflop is 1 trillion floating-point operations per second and is one way to measure processing power of a computer.) I have a dual-processor Pentium III 500MHz at home. It's still slower than my 1667 MHz AMD Athlon system. With Microsoft's mentality, my dual-processor machine should be FASTER than my AMD machine. Guess what... IT'S NOT!

If the Xbox360 processing model is faster using some other standard of measurement, then SHOW ME THE MONEY! Don't just show a retarded chart showing "OMG! XBOX PWNS! IT HAS 3 AGAINST 1!"




ajor Nelson says:

Cell's claimed advantage is on streaming floating point work which is done on its seven DSP processors.

True. So... SHOW ME THE MONEY!






Major Nelson says:

The Xbox 360 GPU has more processing power than the PS3's. In addition, its innovated features contribute to overall rendering performance.

Judging by Sony's claimed 100 billion shader operations per second versus Microsoft's claimed 48 billion shader operations per second, I have a hard time believing this one. However, as far as I know, Sony has not released any details regarding the clock speed of their GPU. If they have, I must've scanned right by it. So, it is possible that from a clock speed standpoint, the Xbox360 GPU is faster.

It should also be noted that the number of shader operations given by Major Nelson's table doesn't match the official numbers given by Microsoft.

Anyone who wants to read a really good break down of the Xbox360 and PS3 GPU's, head over to Anandtech. Best article yet.




Major Nelson says:

Xbox 360 has 278.4 GB/s of memory system bandwidth. The PS3 has less than one-fifth of Xbox 360's (48 GB/s) of total memory system bandwidth.

This part is tricky. When speaking of bandwidth, Sony is talking about the actual bandwidth between the RAM and the Bus, and the direct access between the RAM and VRAM. Microsoft is talking about something completely different, as noted by Anandtech:

Remember the 256GB/s bandwidth figure from earlier? It turns out that that's not how much bandwidth is between the parent [where the GPU core lives] and daughter die [where the Embedded DRAM lives], but rather the bandwidth available to this array of 192 floating point units on the daughter die itself. Clever use of words, no?

Pretty tricksy, Major Nelson. You'll fool the fanboys, but not Top Of Cool.

Parts 2 and 3 of Major Nelson's post can be summed up thusly:

Because Xbox360 has a dot product instruction (which Major Nelson believes does not exist in the Sony processor), the Xbox360 can theoretically perform many more dot product instructions. So, theoretically, the Xbox360 can perform 9.6 billion dot product operations. Sony is CLAIMING 51 billion over the whole system. Major Nelson makes the point that this is really far-fetched, and he's right. I'm not quite sure what Sony was smoking on that one.

In Part 4, Major Nelson discusses Memory Bandwidth again. I've pretty much covered that up above, so won't do so again.

Here's Major Nelson's conclusion:

When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3.

That is still up for debate. It isn't provable based on the numbers and charts Major Nelson gave us, that's for sure.

Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance. The truth is that both systems pack a lot of power for high definition games and entertainment.

However, hardware performance, while important, is only a third of the puzzle. Xbox 360 is a fusion of hardware, software and services. Without the software and services to power it, even the most powerful hardware becomes inconsequential. Xbox 360 games, by leveraging cutting-edge hardware, software, and services, will outperform the PlayStation 3.

Very very VERY true. Sony likes to make big promises.




Ultimately, as Major Nelson says, the hardware is only one small part of the big picture. But come on, this back-and-forth bickering between Microsoft and Sony is getting tiring. People from both companies have been exagerating, over-simplifying, rolling back features, and much more. I can't take it anymore.

To Microsoft and Sony: I AM NOT STUPID. I DO NOT WATCH MTV. I LIKE GOOD GAMES. I LIKE TO BE IN CONTROL OF MY HARDWARE.

Thank you, that is all.

zewulf wrote:Yeah and that DX10 demo (or whatever you wanna call it) from Crytek is all pre-rendered stuff, too; there's no way that's real-time (despite what Crytek may claim otherwise). You people are so gullible Anyway, it didn't really impress me, so why do I care?

That crytek demo isn't even comparable to the farse that was the KZ demo.

If you can't differenciate between the two you have serious issues and should never comment on game tech. Ever.

any that comes from a biased point of view cant comment on tech, let alone someone thats a fanboy

I dont see how any of you morons can be talking about amazing ingame footage that looks fantastic, when its taken from an optimized, closed off tech demo.

For example, those Metal Gear Shots ARE nice. But come on, if it looks like that by the time the game ships, I'll eat my hat.

Remember Halo 2? Per Pixel Lit, real time reflections on even his visor, depth of field etc. It was possible, because it WAS running on an XBOX for its demo trailer movie.

But that was just that. A movie. A movie made in a closed off section, where only what you can see was made, where the whole thing was optimized.

Movies are one thing. In-game, fully playable worlds when dynamics play a huge role is another.

In other words, I'm willing to accept defeat if when MGS4 hits and it looks EXACTLY the same, if not better than this. But if I was to put money on it, I would say that the final game will be far less as visually "stunning" as these shots/movies.

Whos a fanboy? Wheres a fanboy? Wheres any evidence pointing to a fanboy?

o'dium wrote:I dont see how any of you morns can be talking about amazing ingame footage that looks fantastic, when its taken from an optimized, closed off tech demo.

For example, those Metal Gear Shots ARE nice. But come on, if it looks like that by the time the game ships, I'll eat my hat.

Remember Halo 2? Per Pixel Lit, real time reflections on even his visor, depth of field etc. It was possible, because it WAS running on an XBOX for its demo trailer movie.

But that was just that. A movie. A movie made in a closed off section, where only what you can see what made, where the whole thing was optimized.

Movies are one thing. In-game, fully playable worlds when dynamics play a huge role is another.

In other words, I'm willing to accept defeat if when MGS4 hits and it looks EXACTLY the same, if not better than this. But if I was to put money on it, I would say that the final game will be far less as visually "stunning" as these shots/movies.

For once we agree.

o'dium wrote: In other words, I'm willing to accept defeat if when MGS4 hits and it looks EXACTLY the same, if not better than this. But if I was to put money on it, I would say that the final game will be far less as visually "stunning" as these shots/movies.

To be hones t I dont doubt MGS4 looking that good when it hits the stores simply due to the fact that it will be around late 2006 or 2007 before it does. Also previous versions of MGS were deemed to be nothing more than tech demos when PS2 was being talked about and Hideo delivered something that looked exactly the same then so......



regardless, Xbox360 is good, PS3 looks good. Revolution better not suck donkey dick with that god awful controller, PSP (I want it) looks good, DS is nice.



Why be a fanboy of one fucking company, one console and one brand...... you just make yourself look like a biased moron with little intelligence considering how much good tech and good games have been made across all platforms.


Xbox360 = FPS and Live service
PS3 = Sims and racing games
Revolution = Hopefully something thats good
PSP = NICE SHINY SCREEN
DS = Wario ware
Gamecube = Fun games
PS2 = Burnout, tiger woods and some other stuff
XBOX = Halo and some other stuff
SNES = Mariokart
Genesis/megadrive = Desert Strike, sonic
PC engine = R-Type
CollecoVision = Aquaattack
Jaguar = Alien versus Predator and Tempest 2000
Atari 2600 = Pacman and others
Lynx = Blue Lightning
Sega 32 = Virtua racing and fighter
Saturn = Nights, Panzer Dragoon (SAGA AND 2)
Dreamcast = Shenmue and loads of others




The list goes on and on and on.....


I have always liked and owned as many consoles as I can because I like to play games, good games, Not Franchises for the sake of franchises (see FIFA and MAdden etla!)


The only thing I am biased against is fanboys