Well the PS3 is technically, potentially more powerful, no one denies that I think.
For me I guess there are a couple of reasons why I play my XBox more than the PS3, a couple coming to mind are that the games are generally cheaper, that I want to get the achievements and points on my gamer profile, that I prefer the controllers, that I enjoy a lot of the exclusives and that I pay a bunch of money for their (admittedly quite good) internet services and would like to take advantage of that.
Originally posted by General KalieroAh, I doubt though I am sure some did do so but it's generally bought for gaming first.
I do know for a fact that a large number of PS3 owners polled said they originally bought the system because it was a relatively cheap Blu-Ray player that also played games.Microsoft consider Sony a competitor. Just a competitor firmly in third place.
But a competitor nonetheless. Sony had them by the balls a system ago. We will see how this plays out but for this system anyways I favor the ps3.
Originally posted by menokokoro
I died a little reading this.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
The Gamecube was technologically superior to the PS2, last generation. That did not stop the PS2 from soundly winning that generation's "war."
I don't know why people keep denying that the PS3 is superior graphically to the 360.
They keep bringing up sales figures, when that is not the topic being talked about.
We are arguing about 'graphics' here, which the PS3 has in spades.
The 360 factually does NOT have a more powerful processing unit. Period.
And if your going to bring up hardware issues, the 360 has more of them.
It's been 4 years, and even PS3 exclusives are using less than 70% of the console's GPU.
It proves that the console is graphically the most superior in the market right now.
TBH, I'm no PS3 fanboy.
Case in point, I still play my 360 when I feel like playing FPS and pseudo-FPS like Halo 3 and Mass Effect 2.
And I spend more playing time on the PSP than any home console.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygonWell said and I am glad someone else saw that I remained true to my initial points whereas popularity and sales were attempts to steer the debate in the xbox's favor which was never the issue, ever.
I don't know why people keep denying that the PS3 is superior graphically to the 360.They keep bringing up sales figures, when that is not the topic being talked about.
We are arguing about 'graphics' here, which the PS3 has in spades.
The 360 factually does NOT have a more powerful processing unit. Period.
And if your going to bring up hardware issues, the 360 has more of them.It's been 4 years, and even PS3 exclusives are using less than 70% of the console's GPU.
It proves that the console is graphically the most superior in the market right now.TBH, I'm no PS3 fanboy.
Case in point, I still play my 360 when I feel like playing FPS and pseudo-FPS like Halo 3 and Mass Effect 2.
And I spend more playing time on the PSP than any home console.
But most sides are too stubborn to give the other side an inch when dug in this deep into a debate. I have no allegiance towards sony either or microsoft as I favored the xbox over the ps2.
At this point though all sides will start to just repeat themselves.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Ah, I doubt though I am sure some did do so but it's generally bought for gaming first.But a competitor nonetheless. Sony had them by the balls a system ago. We will see how this plays out but for this system anyways I favor the ps3.
A rather large number of people do buy it primarily for the blu-ray, though. A significant enough number that the system has half the software-attack rate as the 360. You saying "I don't think so and I did this" does not change the numbers.
Here's another fun fact - back when the PS3 came out? The buzz over them died after a month. By just after Christmas, you could find them everywhere with little problems. The only way to sell the damn things was to focus on the fact that at the time, they were a cheap blu-ray player. Even though they were also very poor quality blu-ray players at the time.
And the main point of this thread was "which are you more excited about before release", which is obviously no longer relevant; now it is which system is better overall. Sales reflect that better than the system's so-called power.
And Sony has no one 'by the balls', as you so vulgarly put it. They are competition but it's been clear who won for some time.
(also, their reps that go out to stores are ****ing idiots, but that's another story entirely...)
Originally posted by PeachOk and that hurts the system how ? Those people I bet also are not gamers or hardcore gamers so the ps3 is marketable to a crowd outside of gaming unlike the xbox. Point sony.
A rather large number of people do buy it primarily for the blu-ray, though. A significant enough number that the system has half the software-attack rate as the 360. You saying "I don't think so and I did this" does not change the numbers.Here's another fun fact - back when the PS3 came out? The buzz over them died after a month. By just after Christmas, you could find them everywhere with little problems. The only way to sell the damn things was to focus on the fact that at the time, they were a cheap blu-ray player. Even though they were also very poor quality blu-ray players at the time.
And the main point of this thread was "which are you more excited about before release", which is obviously no longer relevant; now it is which system is better overall. Sales reflect that better than the system's so-called power.
And Sony has no one 'by the balls', as you so vulgarly put it. They are competition but it's been clear who won for some time.
(also, their reps that go out to stores are ****ing idiots, but that's another story entirely...)
Sony had them by the balls a system ago with the ps2 vs. the xbox. Don't twist my words or completely forget that it was my comment was directed towards.
The war isn't even close to being over and it's already changed drastically from system to system. Sales aren't the issue nor do they determine which system is superior by any means. You ignore sales when it comes to twilight yet embrace them here. No one is denying the xbox and the company's marketability or system at least I am not. I am simply saying the ps3 is a better system by far imo.
As I see it, the only way to really be able to compare the PS3's graphical superiority to the 360, is porting a PS3 exclusive to the 360.
But the main problem would be, with such a weak graphics processor, 360 does not have the processing power to even run the game.
Probably a RRoD at the first 30 seconds.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
It's already been established multiple times as to why a console's power doesn't mean everything like a couple make it out to be. This is getting pointlessly redundant.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
As I see it, the only way to really be able to compare the PS3's graphical superiority to the 360, is porting a PS3 exclusive to the 360.But the main problem would be, with such a weak graphics processor, 360 does not have the processing power to even run the game.
Probably a RRoD at the first 30 seconds.
Wasn't that the case with FF13?
Funny thing is, the 360 graphics processor(GPU) is probably more powerful than that of the PS3. It's just that the 360 GPU does not have the strong backing from CPU that the PS3 does.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Wasn't that the case with FF13?Funny thing is, the 360 graphics processor(GPU) is probably more powerful than that of the PS3. It's just that the 360 GPU does not have the strong backing from CPU that the PS3 does.
Now, the difference, is that the Xenos includes an eDRAM that automates 4-sample anti-aliasing for negligible performance cost, while the RSX relies on its higher filtered texture sampling to achieve similar effects (which is why in comparison shots, 360 textures almost always appear smoother). Essentially, the PS3 renders faster, but the results aren't quite as smooth without the automated AA.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Well, no, in terms of straight power the PS3's RSX GPU is slightly better than the 360's Xenos GPU, with 550 MHz to Xenos' 500 MHz and a maximum pixel fillrate of 4.4 Gigapixels per second, as opposed to 4 Gigapixels per second. Also 648 floating-point processes per cycle for shading, while the Xenos does 480, and 24 filtered texture sample per clock, opposed to 16.Now, the difference, is that the Xenos includes an eDRAM that automates 4-sample anti-aliasing for negligible performance cost, while the RSX relies on its higher filtered texture sampling to achieve similar effects (which is why in comparison shots, 360 textures almost always appear smoother). Essentially, the PS3 renders faster, but the results aren't quite as smooth without the automated AA.
That's true, but you have to keep in mind that Xenos is ATI architecture while RSX is nVidia. ATI has always(at least for the past several generations) been able to do the same as nVidia with seemingly less. That's why the Xenos' and RSX's parent cards, x1900 and 7800, go neck to neck despite similar discrepancies in specs in some cases.
Truth be told, despite being heavily based on those two cards, Xenos and RSX have received modifications(improvements in some cases, nerfs in others), so I don't think we can compare the performance very well, nor should we because of the differences in architecture between the 360 and the PS3.
Originally posted by Ridley_PrimeNo one said it meant everything. It's still a fact it is more powerful but that doesn't necessarily mean better either but for me it's a good place to start.
It's already been established multiple times as to why a console's power doesn't mean everything like a couple make it out to be. This is getting pointlessly redundant.
Originally posted by General KalieroI gave reasons why I chose the system. To choose either system is based on a personal choice. My choice and the reasons therein were already given. One fact I stated was it's more powerful. That's true and isn't subjective by any means it's a fact. You can choose which ever system you like for any reasons you like but you can't say the xbox is more powerful than the ps3.
So... what you're basically saying is that your argument has no meaning for anyone but yourself?
Originally posted by quanchi112
I gave reasons why I chose the system. To choose either system is based on a personal choice. My choice and the reasons therein were already given. One fact I stated was it's more powerful. That's true and isn't subjective by any means it's a fact. You can choose which ever system you like for any reasons you like but you can't say the xbox is more powerful than the ps3.
Originally posted by quanchi112To each his own but ps3 can do and look prettier than the xbox and also serves as a blu ray player. I will take that any day over a less powerful system that isn't a blu ray player.
I think the one thing that the history of video game consoles has taught us is that power means nothing. Yeah, the potential of the PS3s hardware specs sounds impressive but when we only see this supposed potential being utilized once or twice a year one loses faith and interest in that company. It's been five years and the best thing the PS3 is known for still remains to be it's Blu ray player. I don't say this as a fanboy of any particular console but rather as a disappointed gamer. My loyalty lies with games and not consoles. I will follow the games and before this last year with the PS3s price drop there were simply no games that warranted the horrendous and insulting price and even now, with the price drop there are very few reasons why i see anyone choosing a PS3.
I'm glad to see them getting on the ball and finally deciding to join the online gaming world. I'm just sorry it took them this long to realize that their online network was all but obsolete. I'm certainly going to give their new online pay service a try this winter but i still struggle to find any reason to pay since i've already become so established with the 360. I guess i'm just still waiting to see all of these awesome graphics and innovations in gameplay that they have been promising since pre-launch. My fear is that by the time designers are able to start utilizing the PS3s full potential, it will be time for a PS4 or another 360 and it is going to take the PS3's full potential to convince me that it's a better console than the 360 because hardware specs aside, the 360 produces better titles or at least is able to produce the same content that the PS3 has been