"The Xbox 360 uses a 3.2 GHz triple-core PowerPC-based CPU, whereas the PlayStation 3 uses a 3.2GHz eight-core Cell processor with a PowerPC controller core. It's been proven that the Cell processor used in the PlayStation 3 has more than twice the FLOPS of the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, thus making it more than 100% more powerful."
You do realize that more cores does not equate to more power if it is difficult to work with, or if not more difficult takes more time to work with the extra cores. Not to mention that the SPE's in the Cell processor are more specialized cores and will not be able to handle the larger number of tasks that the more generalized cores used in the Xbox 360.
One can argue that with twice the FLOPS in the Cell CPU, it's flopping twice as hard as the PS3. Processing power is not everything. Having more FLOPS (if you even know what the heck that means) does not mean your processor is better than someone else's. Modern day GPU's are extremely powerful for the tasks they are set to do and can crunch a huge number of FLOPS. Much more than modern CPU's. You still wouldn't want to use a GPU as your CPU since they positively suck for generalized computing. It can be done, you just don't want them for that purpose.
"The PlayStation 3 also uses a 550MHz NVIDIA-made Reality Synthesizer GPU, which is 50% more powerful than the Xbox 360's ATI-developed Xenos GPU. Not to mention the PlayStation 3's processors have access to 256MB of 3.2GHz XDR DRAM (in addition to the 700MHz GDDR3 RAM), whereas the Xbox 360 only uses 700MHz GDDR3."
Completely different GPU architectures and it's inherently different to compare different consoles. The best one can do is to go by game screenshots of the same game but ported to both consoles as well as the best games graphically one can find for both systems. The best that can be said so far of such comparisons is that the PS3 edges the Xbox 360 slightly and some would argue both are roughly the same. Mhz is nothing if AMD Athlon vs Intel P4 hasn't proven that already.
"With the PlayStation 3, you also have more connectivity options. The standard controllers use Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR, whereas the Xbox 360's controllers use an older technology, resulting in lower transfer rates, and consequently, lag. While the Xbox 360 can output HDTV resolutions via component AV, the PlayStation 3 can also use HDMI, which results in a higher-quality digital signal."
Having used the Xbox 360 controllers, there's nothing wrong with them and certainly not the lag you speak of. There is always lag in any controller system whether wired or wireless but if it's not noticeable, then it's ok. I can tell from personal experience there is nothing wrong with the Xbox 360 controllers. Older technology does not mean inferior technology. The wheel is arguably one of the oldest technological discoveries ever but it's certainly not obsolete even at this point. You neglect to mention the resolution glitch of the PS3 which results in inferior graphical output. Component is not as inferior as you make it out to be, do a Google search for "component vs hdmi" if you don't believe me. At best, HDMI edges out component slightly and I do mean slightly.
"In terms of the software library, the PlayStation 3 is backwards compatible with more than 97% of PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 is only backwards compatible with around 30% of Xbox games at the moment. Besides Gears of War, Halo, and Dead or Alive, the Xbox 360 also has very few good exclusives, whereas the PlayStation 3 will have Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, et cetera."
I won't comment too much on the backwards compatibility but it's the one valid argument you've had in your whole entire post.
"There is a lot more stuff on how the PlayStation 3 is superior to the Xbox 360, but this is enough to pwn the Xbox 360. I think the Xbox 360 is alright, but it is by no means better than the PlayStation 3."
Please enlighten us with how the PS3 is superior to the Xbox 360. As far as I can see while the PS3 is the more powerful system, it is not 50% more powerful as you try to claim. I would put it along the lines of perhaps 10-20% more powerful at best. Enough to be noticed in _well_ programmed platform exclusives where you code exclusively for one platform but in cross platform titles there will hardly be any difference. But the differences even in exclusives for both consoles will be slight.
I do have a Wii and 360 in the house. I chose not to get a PS3 at this time even though I have a PSP, PS2, and PS1 (multiple PS2's and PS1's due to them breaking). Hardly a fanboy of any specific console and if you must call me a fanboy, I'd say it's to Nintendo games. Not necessarily Nintendo consoles, just some of the kick ass games they've entertained me with for roughly two decades.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@ myscrnnm @ Jan 24th 2007 5:22PM
"The Xbox 360 uses a 3.2 GHz triple-core PowerPC-based CPU, whereas the PlayStation 3 uses a 3.2GHz eight-core Cell processor with a PowerPC controller core. It's been proven that the Cell processor used in the PlayStation 3 has more than twice the FLOPS of the Xbox 360's Xenon CPU, thus making it more than 100% more powerful."
You do realize that more cores does not equate to more power if it is difficult to work with, or if not more difficult takes more time to work with the extra cores. Not to mention that the SPE's in the Cell processor are more specialized cores and will not be able to handle the larger number of tasks that the more generalized cores used in the Xbox 360.
One can argue that with twice the FLOPS in the Cell CPU, it's flopping twice as hard as the PS3. Processing power is not everything. Having more FLOPS (if you even know what the heck that means) does not mean your processor is better than someone else's. Modern day GPU's are extremely powerful for the tasks they are set to do and can crunch a huge number of FLOPS. Much more than modern CPU's. You still wouldn't want to use a GPU as your CPU since they positively suck for generalized computing. It can be done, you just don't want them for that purpose.
"The PlayStation 3 also uses a 550MHz NVIDIA-made Reality Synthesizer GPU, which is 50% more powerful than the Xbox 360's ATI-developed Xenos GPU. Not to mention the PlayStation 3's processors have access to 256MB of 3.2GHz XDR DRAM (in addition to the 700MHz GDDR3 RAM), whereas the Xbox 360 only uses 700MHz GDDR3."
Completely different GPU architectures and it's inherently different to compare different consoles. The best one can do is to go by game screenshots of the same game but ported to both consoles as well as the best games graphically one can find for both systems. The best that can be said so far of such comparisons is that the PS3 edges the Xbox 360 slightly and some would argue both are roughly the same. Mhz is nothing if AMD Athlon vs Intel P4 hasn't proven that already.
"With the PlayStation 3, you also have more connectivity options. The standard controllers use Bluetooth 2.0 with EDR, whereas the Xbox 360's controllers use an older technology, resulting in lower transfer rates, and consequently, lag. While the Xbox 360 can output HDTV resolutions via component AV, the PlayStation 3 can also use HDMI, which results in a higher-quality digital signal."
Having used the Xbox 360 controllers, there's nothing wrong with them and certainly not the lag you speak of. There is always lag in any controller system whether wired or wireless but if it's not noticeable, then it's ok. I can tell from personal experience there is nothing wrong with the Xbox 360 controllers. Older technology does not mean inferior technology. The wheel is arguably one of the oldest technological discoveries ever but it's certainly not obsolete even at this point. You neglect to mention the resolution glitch of the PS3 which results in inferior graphical output. Component is not as inferior as you make it out to be, do a Google search for "component vs hdmi" if you don't believe me. At best, HDMI edges out component slightly and I do mean slightly.
"In terms of the software library, the PlayStation 3 is backwards compatible with more than 97% of PlayStation and PlayStation 2 games. On the other hand, the Xbox 360 is only backwards compatible with around 30% of Xbox games at the moment. Besides Gears of War, Halo, and Dead or Alive, the Xbox 360 also has very few good exclusives, whereas the PlayStation 3 will have Gran Turismo 5, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, et cetera."
I won't comment too much on the backwards compatibility but it's the one valid argument you've had in your whole entire post.
"There is a lot more stuff on how the PlayStation 3 is superior to the Xbox 360, but this is enough to pwn the Xbox 360. I think the Xbox 360 is alright, but it is by no means better than the PlayStation 3."
Please enlighten us with how the PS3 is superior to the Xbox 360. As far as I can see while the PS3 is the more powerful system, it is not 50% more powerful as you try to claim. I would put it along the lines of perhaps 10-20% more powerful at best. Enough to be noticed in _well_ programmed platform exclusives where you code exclusively for one platform but in cross platform titles there will hardly be any difference. But the differences even in exclusives for both consoles will be slight.
I do have a Wii and 360 in the house. I chose not to get a PS3 at this time even though I have a PSP, PS2, and PS1 (multiple PS2's and PS1's due to them breaking). Hardly a fanboy of any specific console and if you must call me a fanboy, I'd say it's to Nintendo games. Not necessarily Nintendo consoles, just some of the kick ass games they've entertained me with for roughly two decades.