Xbox 360 Fanboy

PS3 fanboys owned by SONY , ouch!

Reply

Im sorry Sony...Your Hype will never match up to your ego. "Blue Ray in the past was used to refer to a photo-copying process for blueprints and/or traces. This equipment is now largely obsolete." Im thinking the Blue ray player will be obsolete much faster than the photo coping process.Tada

Reply

For the sake of this article, assuming for a moment all things being true, it sounds no different than when a company only releases SHIPPED copy statistics of their game, not SOLD copies. Perhaps CELL's peak "horsepower" is 200GFLOPS in ideal conditions, with a tail wind, but real world application brings it home, right next to the 360.

Then again, who cares, just get it over with, get the system out and get me all the games. Every system looks outstanding and all will have killer games(just like last-gen), so this is all academic.

Give me a Christmas of Gears of War, MGS4 and Zelda TP (with Wii Enhancements!) and I'll leave extra cookies out next to the tree.

Reply

two words....

emotion engine

this hurts sooo bad If i was in the sony camp I would be raged big time. ah well

Reply

Sony is well-known for publishing "ideal situation" numbers that don't hold up in real world situations. The same goes for the dual 1080p screens that the PS3 can drive. Yes, the nVidia graphics chip inside the PS3 can handle 1080p dusplays flawlessly but only if you put severe limits on the 3D graphics output. The vast majority of PS3 games will use 720P because that's the soft spot for maximum game performance. If you go higer than that, the frame rate will drop. This will be very noticeable on one 1080p display, let alone two. Besides that, who expects to see PS3-games utilizing dual displays anyway? Dual displays have a place in high end PC setups, but not in living rooms where you're going to find the PS3.

Reply

PS3 fanboys have to make fun of the Wii fanboys, it's all they've got left.

Reply

PC fanboys make fun of 360 fanboys who make fun of PS3 fanboys who make fun of Wii fanboys who make fun of everybody playing a console that doesn't have a Mario game.

Me? I really don't care. I'll go where the games are.

Reply

It seem's to me.. a customer.. that SONY haven't being honest and are purposely trying to deceive customer's. I don't know about you but I don't waste my time on such w@nkers. What they're actual saying is you're too stupid to notice or care. Great company? Nah..

I much prefer the upfront approach of Mircosoft and the wacky approach of Nintendo.

But each to their own..

Reply

Interesting stuff all around but I think the writer missed one point... The MAX theoretical output of the 360 is 115 GFLOPS under ideal conditions we should assume that the 360 cannot (just like the ps3) ever reach that maximum. If the 360 runs with similar efficency as teh ps3 (75.9%) then the real life usable GFLOPS for the 360 would be around 87.44 when we compare that to the what the writer has assumed for the ps3 of 133 GFLOPS then the PS3 will be capable of 65% more processing power than the 360. Not quite twice the processing power touted from marketing but definetly a significant improvement.

Reply

Personally I'm used to this sort of thing, companies always overstate what their machines can do. In the end it all comes down to games, not if they made up a term like emotion engine.

The PS2 had the best and widest selection of games last generation. What sets the xbox apart and converted me was Live. Somewhere during the 600 hours of rainbow six 3 online play time my PS2 got traded in.

And when all the numbers and hype fade away, there's going to be two great consoles, with many games made cross-platform for both.

The 360 will have Live and the PS3 will have blu-ray and I think those will be the big selling points of this generation, not polygon counts.

Just my 2 cents.

And as far as nintendo goes, I would expect a warioware urinating game where you hold the revmote between your legs and aim it at things on fire. All while yelling, wiiiiiiiii.

Reply

Good point devi8i, however do you have any link or anything that proves tht the 115GFLOPS for the 360 is the max theoretical, as the case with the PS3. Generally speaking, Microsoft (of all companies), have been much more honest than Sony when it comes to consoles (at least it seems to me). I'm therefore curious if this value really is only theoretical, and what may be the actualy GFLOP output.

Reply

Seriously guys, is GFLOP really even a word? The only equation or whatever I need to know about graphics and shit is XBOX 360=fuckin' awesome!

Reply

Believe it or not this article wasn't to start a flame war between fanboys. It was more to let people see that Sony has been playing us all the same way that they did before the PS2 came out. They're scrambling to keep people from buying 360's now as they were trying to stop people from buying the Dreamcast then. When all is said both systems will have great games, but I think it's kind of silly for Sony's fanbase to try and tout power when a partner making the "cell" (IBM) says they won't have nearly as much power as they said. I just wanted to point out this generations "emotion engine" is all. As for the 360's tech numbers being max output or not, I'm not sure but I'll try and find it for reference and if I do I'll be sure to post it here.

Reply

Well, Ken Kutaragi is notorious for blowing allot of hot air (aka flat out lying, to the point where some could think he's a compulsive lier) when trying to market a Playstation console at trade shows. He had false, outlandish statements for all his Playstation consoles, and obviously PS3 is no different. When I looked at allot of the specs, I immediately knew he was blowing allot of hot air and all those E3 2005 trailers pretty much screamed "CG Rendered".

The PS3 and 360 will be EXTREMELY close in graphics capabilities, were the graphics will look pretty much no different. I saw a GPU comparason chart and I saw in some areas, such as memory speed and clock, they were the same, in some areas (such a pixel pipelines, vertex and pixel shaders, etc) the 360 was better due to its unified architecture (which can adjust between 1-48 pixel pipelines and 1-48 vertex pipelines depending on the game, but it has to be like 24 pixel, 24 vertex or 32 pixel, 16 vertex), but afew areas were better about the PS3 GPU. But all in all, they will have extremely similar graphics despite their architecture differences.

Also, Sony hypes 1080p but MANY developers have said that it would be impossible to make their games run at anywhere near an acceptable frame rate at 1080p, so the only thing you will be seeing in that is the PS3 dash and backwards compatible PS2 games. I guess that's why MS didn't even bother with 1080p. You also got the fact that HDTVs that support 1080p are still very expensive and some of them don't even support true 1080p.

Also, comparing the CPU architectures, they seem to be about same on power in that aspect too. Because the PS3s SPEs are no where near as efficient as the main core, making it very close to the 360's CPU.

That's the biggest thing about this generation, netier platform will more powerful than the other. But I wish these PS3 fanboys would stop saying "Oh, the PS3 is so much more powerful", because its NOT, its on-par with 360. Its ironic that these fanboys didn't care about system power and almost vowed that system power didn't matter, until Kutaragi claimed the PS3 would be more powerful....

Reply

Whoopingwombat here is what you are looking for.. this is straight out of the horses mouth ttp://download.microsoft.com/download/1/B/2/1B2DA71A-6E70-48EF-8656-2649A1C95E9F/Xbox360FS.doc


warning MS word document

Reply

Is anyone really suprised? Doesn't seem like it.

Sony is notorious for being full of themselves as well as full of crap at the same time. They make outrageous claims and like to proclaim what is really technology of today as being the technology of tomorrow's tomorrow. As if buying the PS3 is a time machine that will take you 100 years into the future. *cough*

They have to justify to the public why their console is going to arrive late, cost more, and have games that cost more than the games of other consoles. While at the same time somehow convince people that haven't yet bought a 360 that they shouldn't buy one becuase the PS3 is going to be THAT MUCH better.

Hence the only way to pull off that feat is to... lie.

Reply

And to all, I wasnt trying to help start a flame war here, I was just trying to illustrate that if you want to compare apples to apples then do so. You cannot compare one systems theoretical MAX performance against another systems theoretical REAL world performance and call it a fair comparison. Regardless of what you look at consoles or computers manufacturers always state their HIGHEST THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE for PR and marketing. Generally real life numbers are significantly lower then stated. So to be fair lets say that both systems can deliver about 60% of what they claim, then the PS3 GFLOPS per second will be higher, and you could argue significantly higher. However, this being said, the two systems in question here have taken wildly different approaches in hardware, and there can be arguements on both sides as to which approach is better.

At the end of the day though the only thing that matters is the end user experience and percieved value. I am the proud owner of a ps2, 360, gamecube, gba, and a gaming computer. Before hurricane katrina I also had a N64, dreamcast and original flavour Xbox. I have complaints with all the systems, but I also like all of them for different reasons. And, come november I will also be buying a PS3.

I say "If the game fits, play it!"

Reply

"I can't speak much for Sony right now—yeah, we're working on stuff for the PS3 but honestly I'm so busy with Gears [of War] that it's all I'm seeing and I can tell you—Microsoft is giving you a hell of a system. This thing is a BEAST and is capable of MUCH GREATNESS."

Reply

devi8i, here's a rebuttal to your "apples-to-apples" comparison of max theoretical output: the reason the "max theoretical output" of the PS3 is so low (75.9% compared to 100%) is that there is a lot of performance lost in coordinating multiple processors. And comparing apples to apples, all things being equal, etc., the PS3 has to coordinate 7 processors (or 6 if you count the loss of the OS-reserved SPE) while the Xbox 360 has to coordinate 3.
There are an incredible number of factors that will effectively make this whole thing impossible to prove quantitatively, but every last bit of reliable advance word I've heard states that PS3 and Xbox 360 are roughly comparable in power with a very slight advantage going to PS3.

Reply

You are definitely true Devi8i, the raw benchmarks can NOT be used as a comparison for real-world performance. Because how a game actually truly performs will be different that how it performs theroretically or even in tech-demos. Also, many factors can affect real-world performance, especially how the game is developed.

Also, I also feel the same way about gaming. If you enjoy playing it, then play it. Just don't try to bash the person playing something else and ruin their fun. I just really don't like these "mindless-bashing" type fan boys that will say something "sucks" without ever reading up on it, looking at its games, or especially playing it.

Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 are be VERY nice platforms, and are what I like to call "different but equal" powerhouses capable of performing awesome graphics. But like I said, both of them will be on-par on what their capable of, which is one of the most unique things about this generation. So this generation, the platform someone prefers will be solely just be based on games and system features, because we won't have the system power differences we had last generation.

Reply