And 3 or 4 dvd9 to get the full game. I love my 360

*Gets a shield and wait for the Fanboys to start the flaming*

its something like burnout and twisted metal put together then i will be willing to wait for this game but if its like full auto then... this is gonna suck in some way where theres 50-50 people liking and hating the game..... but what can i say im just one person compare to everyone's opinion :\

there r just contradicting themselves, they themselves stated that rage will run better on ps3, and now there r saying 360 will out perform the ps3, not only that the major lie in carmack's statement was, how the ***** can a game with this good graphics, amazing physics and lightening can run on a console at 60 fps?! the only reason y carmack acted out this stupid is, MS bribed id. thats the only possibility.

In other words, they're saying they just ported the game. They didn't need to split the different things up.

The PS3 only has one 512 MB of RAM whereas the 360 has two 256 MB of RAM. That's why the PS3 will have lower framerate. They took the same approach with the 360 to the PS3. They didn't need to...

As he said earlier, the PS3 version is getting higher quality textures

The PS3 has more power. They should learn to use it, rather than taking the easiest path and punishing consumers.



Skidz, the difference is that the PS3 is a dedicated gaming machine, while your computer isn't. Your computer has to dedicate hundreds of megabytes of RAM to running itself, the PS3 doesn't. You can complain about the RAM, but when you get a game like GRID that is extremely similar across PS3 and PC, you see that the PS3 has enough RAM. It just doesn't need as much as a PC, because it's not running Windows in the background.

PS3 fanboy formula:



Step 1: If a game is inferior on PS3 to another console, choose one of these options. A) Scream bribery from MS. B) Act like you're no longer interested. C) Go straight to talking about how amazing Blu Ray is.



Step 2: If a great game isn't coming to the PS3, choose one of these options. A) Scream bribery from MS. B) Pretend like having one good game, MGS4, makes up for it somehow. C) Make a list of games that are gonna come out in 2011 and hope none of them go multiplatform (if they do go multiplatform please see Step 1).



Remember Sony fans, it is up to YOU to keep the rumor that PS3 is superior alive. If you ever find yourself in a losing battle deploy the patented and proven "xbotx" technique, because there's nothing worse than namecalling!

So honestly now, think about it, you're making yourself look like a bit of a fanboy.



Don't stoop down there.

Yea I can see it now, Your driving across the world arrive at the halfway mark then boom "Please insert disc 2 then hit ok."

actually, ps3 does have two sets of 256MB RAM, which add up to 512MB, and RAM is also sharable, which means that the CPU RAM can share with the GPU RAM, and the process of sharing RAM won't cause any latency either. to this day, i still have no idea y ppl r so dumb.

But didn't have the time. I'd assume that is what they'll do, have the entire game world on each disc, and you'd have to switch discs to continue the story, but you could free-roam all you want on either disc. Which really wouldn't be bad at all. Or they could maybe allow users with the large HDD to install both discs and then only have to use disc 1.



I'm sure id will make it work, I'd just like them to let everyone know is all



btw superquest they already confirmed it'll be on 2 discs, not 3 or 4.

Development on the Tech 5 has probably always been focused on running in a Windows environment. It may be only natural that it takes advantage of the console Microsoft made because id is more familiar in that environment.



They're still technical geniuses and only time will tell which one comes out looking "best." Swapping discs might only be to get access to the second land and the story whether it be video or in game cut scenes. With hdd install on 360 you may be able to access both lands from the second disc. Either way I don't see this as any reason to hate the PS3 version. It sounds to me like id just wants to play to the advantages of each console.

So they're lazy then?

but when is developing a game ever easy???? do u want a developer to go out and say "ooo developing on this system is easy". thats stupid, i dont think developing is ever easy, in fact its a ***** load of work...so stop *****ing, everyone knows that mgs4 is probably one of the best games ever, but expecting kojima to say "developing it on ps3 is sooo hard" is dumb.



AALSOO "if a great game isn't coming to the PS3, choose one of these options. A) Scream bribery from MS. B) Pretend like having one good game, MGS4, makes up for it somehow. C) Make a list of games that are gonna come out in 2011 and hope none of them go multiplatform (if they do go multiplatform please see Step 1)" just to make a fool of sublime 4 being a fanboy...what game are we talking about??? there is hardly 1 game on 360 that could get me slightly interested...were you looking at your list of ps3 games you want to go multiplatform when you wrote this??? hahaaa loser

there is hardly 1 game on 360 that could get me slightly interested



if you dont like the games then there is obviously som1 smarter than you who likes them.before you reply this comment please note that i know what games are exclusive to ps3 otherwise you'd write the names of all the exclusives and claim you like them all and hardly one xbox 360 exclusive

They need to figure out how to correctly use the Cell instead of making excuses for laziness.

that's something I forgot and is almost evrytime that the PS3 version gets bashed over the 360...

I was thinking the same thing; that I thought Carmack had stated not too long ago that Rage would run better on PS3, and that Blu-ray really made the difference. .....But, then, I just remembered that they recently sold id Software to ZeniMax (Bethesda). So, it's probably Bethesda that sold-out to Microsoft, not necessarily id themselves. ---Humorous how fast that turnaround happened, though. Hope Carmack likes bing a whore now. Double-humorous that the guy who for so long has had a prime grudge against M$ and all of their DirectX bs and everything ... is now eager to put out positive-press for Xbox 360 (long before their development cycle is even near completion).

RAGE has several maps, each map gets it's own disk. When it's released, it gets two disks because there's two maps.

This is exactly the case and always will be with cross platform games.



This articles explains nicely how the Cell works...



http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-linuxps3-1/



It really is backwards compared to how you program for PC/360 CPU's. Which just use multiple general purpose cores with multiple threads per core.



Since it's easier and makes better buisness sense to develop for PC/360, most engines will be built around that architecture (ID games especially) and then the PS3 version needs to be changed dramatically to get the same performance.

-"no, there lying, there is a high possibility that MS bribed them to say the following cuz"



Oh please.



-"basically they are contradicting themselves."



And as I've shown, ID spoke about texture quality before, not perfoemance, so there's no contradiction.



-"and another fact is, i checked the RSX and Xenos specs and RSX just kills Xenos in Rasterization."



The two GPUs are DIFFERENT technology, and therefore you can't compare them by looking at specs you don't understand (with all due respect). The fact is, you will not find a single quote from any developer with experience of both consoles who says RSX is more powerful than Xenos (the 360's GPU). But you will find MANY from devs who say they're about the same, and quotes from devs who say Xenos has a slight edge over RSX.



-"over the all these years, not even one developer complained/lied about RSX."



And not one says it's more powerful than the 360's GPU.



"and multiplatform games no-a-days, PS3 just kills the 360 in performance"



No it doesn't, for the vast majority of multi-format games, the 360's performance is still on par or slighter better than the PS3, leading to many gamers calling the devs lazy for the PS3 versions.



"for example the 360 version of bionic commando runs at an average Frame rate of 25, while the PS3 runs at solid 30. so to conclude, thery are lying"



And Bionic Commander is practically the only example like this in favour of the PS3, it's the exception to the rule, and yet there are many multiformat games with better graphics. So it really doesn't prove anything at all. :|

Blu-rays are much cheaper now, so that argument is deprecated.



Check Amazon.com or even Bestbuy.

ok first of all, no developer said that RSX is better, but the official specs sheet did. and another statement of carmack that contradicts is that he claimed both CPUs on both systems are the same, but the fact is, the ps3's CPU is most powerful CPU in the world, it even went in the Guinness world record. and bionic commando is not the only game that is inferior on the 360, wanted is also a good example that proves that some 360 multiplat games r inferior, and most of the multiplat games that were released in year 2008, and 2009 run better on the ps3, for futher evidence, use a search engine like google or ask.com. so to conclude, 360's hardware is nothing compared to the ps3's. and the fact is, devs were lazy, because they weren't able to optimize games properly on ps3 before, so they became lazy and just did wut was faster for them. and there is a high possibility that M$ bribed them cuz, they r known to bribe other developers. so to just end this argument, i would like to say that, it is pointless to argue with u cuz u r a fanboy, and u don't admit to fact, thus i advice u to not to reply to this comment.

I doubt he'll comment again, I think that was check mate. And just for the record, MGS4 is definitely not the only good title on the PS3, but I don't blame you for waiting on the price to come down. $400 is a lot of money unless you're a pretty extreme gamer or plan to use the Blu-ray player a lot.

MGS4 isn't the only good title. But its the one I wanna play the most, as for others Killzone2, uncharted.. etc. they can wait.

Also, most games are cross platform..

But yeah..

Haha - a rage dump every frame, cos the code is moronically implemented and stupidly unoptimized...



What are we all 10 yrs old?!?!



As if any of this would be true in any way. A new game to run at 20-30 frames... no company (that wants to make a profit or keep a high quality profile) would try and sell a game or app that would run this slow, I'd like to see any proof for the article in any way, shape or form. More like a lowest or even average frame rate but not max rate. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, OMFG STUPID.

I registered on this site just to tell every last one of you who commented in this thread that you are guys a noobs. Through and through. Not one of you has even the slightest clue about the hardware or potential performance of either system. You idiots live in this little dream world where the PS3 is this monstrosity of a system that puts the beat down on the 360. Stop smoking crack and follow the rest of us back to reality.



I own both systems and I will never understand why you Sony fanboys are so naive to the fact that Sony is the same money hungry evil corporation that Microsoft is. The only difference is Sony is far lazier. Sony has to have their own disc format, their own media memory and then they try to stuff the PS3 down our throats as this amazing media center. HA! The most basic $300 laptop from Wal-Mart is 100x the media center the PS3 is. What kind of media center wont let you stream media to other devices on your network? What media center will let you copy files to it, but not off it? Are you kidding me?



"BUT OMGZZZ M$ MAKES U P@Y FOR THE INTERNETS!!!111"



I would rather pay $100 a year for Xbox Live than use Sony's ridiculous, trash network. The fact that it is free is nothing but a cop out. Wake up morons, Sony lets you use it for free because if we had to pay for it, they might actually have to make it useful. The PSN is nothing but a matchmaker linking you to a server. Sony basically throws up it's arms, looks at the developers and says "you do multiplayer however you want, but we dont want any part of it". The result is dedicated servers. You PS3 idiots keep thinking that is a good thing and sometimes you're right, but sometimes you're wrong. What happens when I pop in KZ2 and have the most horrible, laggy, unenjoyable experience for 3 weeks straight. PS3 fanboy response: "Get a new connection noob. My parents pay for the super l33t internets and I never lag". Wrong. I ran trace route after trace route (if you dont know what a trace route is, dont you dare even reference anything about PSN, Live, multiplayer or the internet in general) and the result is the same, every killzone 2 game gets sent to a server farm somewhere in Virginia. You east coast players may love it, but over here in San Diego 3000 miles, 26 hops and 150ms away, its a god damn lag fest. Gamestop takes KZ2 back and I'm back on the 360. I'm not even going to mention the little things like, voice messages, parties, party chat, more than 2 people in a game have a mic, etc. Let's just say these little things make the experience much better on Xbox.



As for the hardware side of things, I dont even know where to start. Sony has led you guys to believe that the PS3 is this beast of a system that the 360 cant even compare to. Cell this, RSX that... It's all a bunch of BS that Sony has brainwashed you with. Yes, the Cell processor is capable of crunching numbers at an extremely high rate as shown by Folding@Home. But games are different, they're dynamic, they rely on a heavy dose of Floating Point Calculations which are much more complex than Folding@Home. It's for this reason Cell is extremely difficult to code for. These developers arent being paid off by MS like numbskulls are convinced, they're simply telling the truth.



The other side of things is where most you are not even in the same universe as the truth, the RSX. This GPU is no where near as powerful as you guys think it is. RSX is nothing more than an underclocked NV40 GeForce6 GPU circa - 2004. It uses the old rendering architecture based on ROPs, TMUs and raw multi-textured fillrate. Where the PS3 and RSX fall way short is video memory. You noobs need to understand the fact that Xbox360 has twice as much dedicated video memory as the PS3. They both have the same TOTAL video memory, but dedicated and shared video memory is NOT the same. Once the RSX runs out of dedicated video memory, it calls the system RAM. This is a piss poor alternative to just giving RSX more memory of its own. The GPU now has to swap textures back and forth between it'

maybe you can tell that to all the people that got rrod, or maybe you can tell that too someone who actually believes it. the proof is in the pudding pall, sony is a hardware company lets not forget that 360 took their processor from ibm. on top of that bluray beat hddvd... also id like to see you run 1080p movies and games on a 300 dollar laptop, you pay way more by paying 100 bucks for online without even having an upper hand. why you are so obsessed with your lovable xbox that you fail to see that not all ps3 servers are dedicated. man how come since the last 2 years all the best grafix and game awards are given to ps3 games, how come ps3 games keep getting bigger while 360 games are all the same, how come killzone 2s grafix rape any game out there??????????????????????????????????????????answer me that *****er? when you go back on your 360 WHAT GAMES DO YOU PLAY WHAT? cod4 thats right cod4. multimedia system up your ass, 360 is a game system with no games get the hell out of here and go customize you mii maybe you can put some glasses on it so it helps you see, because no matter what you believe you cant deny that sony is innovative and microsoft are a bunch of thieves

"but the fact is, the ps3's CPU is most powerful CPU in the world"



You obvioulsy have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Silly fanboy.

I've actually gotten the RRoD twice, and I still play my 360.

Here you go, back to the Sony Fanboy Formula. referring to Blu-ray and Killzone2



Also, you used the word "Too" incorrectly,

and your grammar makes me dizzy

If you knew anything, you'd know that most games that come out, run at 30FPS...

unless its CoD, which runs at 60FPS

Thank you for describing yourself.



I'm just saying your ranting isn't going to change any one's opinion. If anything, it'll make their opinion stronger.

i wasn't joking mupet, its the truth, search any where u want, ps3's CPU went in the Guinness world record for being the world's most powerful CPU in the world, im surprised that u didn't know this fact, most ppl who own a 360 know this fact, looks like ur the silly fanboy now!

PS3's CPU could have been fastest(!) at the release time. While I don't think so, current CPUs make mincemeat out of PS3's or X360's CPU. Even then you cannot compare PS3's CPU with for example Core2Duo. Because they are working different from each other. If you think about it, XBOX360's GPU is ATI based and also it was based on 3XXX series (or maybe 2XXX, I cannot remember right now). If you really think about it they made them with 2005's(2004?) technology, and it's almost 2010 right now. And now you say Ps3 still has world record on CPU?

WAKE UP PEOPLE

RROD is finished unless you still own the old xboxes.

my xbox has been on for 3 days straight and it still doesnt have any error and is really cool.

if you love your xbox so much then I got one question. How many times have you tried to have intercourse with it?

omg some of you people just complain and complain. Of course the Cell is going to be hard to develop for... its the first CPU design of its class to be utilized. Secondly, the RSX was compared more to a GeForce 7 series, not a GeForce 6. It only stated that its more powerful then two Geforce 6 GPUs put together. Third, yes PS3 has 256mb CPU/256mb GPU memory which can be shared, but lets not forget that 256mb of that memory is XDR which is extremely fast compared to GDDR3. You can knock the RSX is youd like... but if I remember right, Microsoft used Nvidia in there first Xbox design. Also why do so many people knock Blue Ray? Thats probably the best feature on the PS3 due to the fact that you will never have to swap discs and developers have unlimited potential unlike 360 where you have to worry about compressing every damn thing just to make it fit on a DVD9. For the 360, of course its going to be easy to develop for, it uses the same CPU technology as what we use in computers today which developers are very use to developing for. For all you people that cant come up with a better insult besides "your a fanboy" just realize that people are expressing there opinions and if it really pisses you off that much to where you have to call people a fanboy, then there must be some truth in what your reading. Otherwise STFU. (this is opinionated only, not meant or intended to be any factual information and also not directed at anyone in particular, its a generalized opinion and statement)

LOL jac got pwned

Because I can't understand why you fail to see what's clearly in front of your eyes!



Let's look at that second link you provided;



It says "Cell Processor Drives Record-Breaking Supercomputer"



So, is that ONE Cell processor driving the record-breaking supercomputer? No, it's "a machine that uses 13,000 of the PS3's Cell processors, with each one of the 8-core chips performing at speeds of 4GHz".



13000 Cell processors, or to be more exact, 12,240 as stated before.



So please explain why you can't understand the SIMPLE difference between a machine with 13000 Cell processors (that supercomputer) and a machine with ONE Cell processor (the PS3).



So I hate to say it to you again, but NOWHERE does it say the Cell processor is the most powerful processor in the world.



And the rest of your post proves my point, since you have failed to provide a single link from a reputable source to back up your argument.



Next time, try arguing over something you understand, or better still, learn to understand what you read on websites, it helps.

i already gave u the links, use google :-), i believe u r the one failing to see wuts going on here, PS3's Hardware is superior than the 360's, get over it! if u want proof, use google, there r tons of information that proves that PS3's hardware is better that the 360's. and if u send another comment which states that u r still waiting for the links, then i recommend u to shut ur trap and go play with your 360. i rest my case.

Corrected quote "We have parity between the platforms now: BOTH RUN AT THE SAME SPEED ... If the game's shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360; if it's compute-heavy with physics and particles, then the SPUs take over and it's a bit quicker on PS3"



Corrected sentence - "So that's 3 devs I quoted saying the same thing about the 360 and PS3...."

one more thing, no dev claimed that RSX is better than Xenos nor claimed that Xenos is better than RSX, but their works did, how come u don't see 360 games that have graphics like killzone 2? or MGS4? or Heavy Rain? or God of war? or uncharted 2? this all proves it, PS3 is a better Hardware, not even a single 360 game that looks par with nor has superior visuals than PS3 exclusives.

like i said, im not a fanboy, i own both console, i even gave u my Gamer tag. the fact is, i proved that ps3's hardware is superior than the 360's, u r not accepting any of the facts so that ur problem. any way, im not arguing about this game anymore, i claimed that PS3 has a superior hardware than the 360, and i provided u more than enough proof to back it up, ur the one who is not accepting it. and i already presented u the evidence that proves that RSX and CELL is infact better than the 360's CPU and GPU, read my "one more thing" comment, i see u didn't reply to that comment, so i see u don't HAVE any comment regarding to that subject, thats a sign of retreat, good job 4 accepting ur defeat. i rest my case.

" where the 360's CPU offers half that floating-point power. Correct? But for general processing, you know like main code for games and applications, the 360's CPU outperforms Cell, about twice as powerful I've read."



ok, answer this question? where is the proof to back up wut u stated? u claim that Xenon out performs CELL in general gaming codes, wheres the proof?



"But, do PS3 exclusives look better than 360 exclusives? Oh yes, most certainly they do imo, but that's more about the ability and resources of the devs making the games, it's not proof that the PS3 is as powerful as you make out."



They DO prove that the PS3 is a powerful system. i mean u said it urself, the devs have the ability and resources to make spectacular looking games on the PS3, which means that the PS3 has a better hardware and can to more than the 360. and im not opposing any devs here, its just that, PS3 can do more things than the 360 because of its hardware capabilities. ok, many developers stated that 360 is easier to work on, then how come not even a single 360 exclusive look as nearly as good as the PS3's exclusives? why? one simple reason, because of the PS3's hardware capabilities, which means that, PS3 is a better hardware. and also one more than, in press conferences like E3, sony always brags about their hardware and wut it can do and how powerful it is, then as u stated, how come M$ don't talk about their hardware capabilities, because they KNOW that their hardware cannot be compared to the PS3's superior hardware, they know that they can't counter the fact that PS3's hardware is better, so they stress the focal point on their online services and features. so to conclude, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages in hardware, but over all, PS3's hardware is superior. and take a look at this thread, it shows u more depth in programing on PS3 and 360 ,and their hardware http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t+574206.

Listen, I think the PS3 is awesome, I can list numerous reasons why it's better than my 360, -BUT- I can also list reasons why the 360 is better than my PS3. Like I said, they are about equal, the main person who design the CPUs says the differences balances out to make them fairly equal, devs say the GPUs are fairly equal, so CLEARLY the results we see on each console is mostly down to the developers, like UG said in his post.



Naughty Dog, Konami, Polyphony are amongst the small group of devs who got the best out of the PS2 last gen. They ALWAYS push the hardware more than anyone else, so of course they are going to get great results out of the PS3. Name an XBox exclusive developer who has a reputation for pushing the hardware like Naughty Dog. Name the 360 exclusive dev equal to Konami's MGS4 team.



And Haze was an exclusive FPS for the PS3, and yet Killzone 2 graphically cr@ps all over Haze from a great height :-D. So that's two games, BOTH exclusives, BOTH on the same hardware, and yet one is clearly better than the other. Why? Because Guerilla had a bigger and better development team with more money and more time to create their game.



Referring back to Konami, they said in their podcast in June that they expect their MGS game for 360 and PS3 will look better than MGS4, on BOTH consoles. So let's see how that turns out (i.e. a 360/PS3 game from a dev who knows how to push hardware to the limits).



http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/radio/the_report/the_report_094.mp3

We are in a forum RIGHT NOW. Someone in future posting the link to our discussion here is NOT proof of THEIR argument, whether they agree with me or agree with you.



People on forums are NO DIFFERENT to you or me!



Online forum discussions amongst anonymous people are NOT credible sources Jac. They are no more credible than the thousands of topics discussed here on QJ over the years.



So going back to the CPU, I've posted you the comments from the main guy behind the design of Cell and Xenon. HE IS THE MAIN PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN ON BOTH PROCESSORS. Therefore HE is a credible source, in fact, the most credible source you can get about the CPUs. Anonymous people on a forum are NOT a credible source.



Sorry for the use of capitals here, but you really need to understand that forums don't prove anything to anyone. They can be good sources of info and may provide useful links, but the comments of people in those forums are not proof of anything, even if they are right.

I've answered that question already, so has UG, in fact, so has Konami in their podcast, since they say the next version of MGS will look BETTER than MGS4 on BOTH the 360 and PS3, so there WILL be a game like MGS4 on the 360, which answers the question, i.e. that it's down to the developers, as we've already said.



But again, nice attempt to distract our attention away from the GPU and CPU discussion.

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAH I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!!! i knew u were going 2 say that, well u see, konami never stated that MGS rising will look better than MGS4, they stated that they r making a new engine to get the best on all the platforms, they never stated that it will look better than MGS4, this is wut is stated in the podcast "We%u2019re redoing the engine from scratch, and it%u2019s going to look amazing,%u201D says Eyestone. %u201CIt%u2019s going to be a big project like Metal Gear Solid 4. The entire team is serious about making it look as good as possible on every platform.", so to conclude, he never said that it will look better than MGS4, he just stated that they r using a new engine to make it look as identical as possible on all systems. so i guess u just read the title and assumed that it will look better than MGS4. hahaha lol at u.

i think the word that sums up that last post is 'pwned' hehehe.



but being serious now, you really reacon they can pull it off jez? i mean mgr beating mgs4 graphics on 360/ps3 like they say? call me skeptical but i believe that when i see it. but i suppose if any one can do it then it's konami and they haven't let us down yet in the mgs series. so i keep my mind open on that.



i get what jac_the_ripper is saying about those exclusives though cause 360 exclusives can't match the graphics in games like uncharted and mgs4 and killzone. i know u say it's cause of the dev teams but why cant ms get devs like naughty dog then? they got the money.



i agree that these ps3 dev teams are awesome though cause they always get the max out of any hardware they work on, so if they were working on exclusive wii games they probably make the best looking wii games, and same with 360 if naughty dog and guerilla were making exclusive games on that console (but thats NEVER gonna happen hehe). so 360 needs to find their own developers who are as good.



so yeah it's about the devs, but until more 360 games matches ps3 exclusives, then you can't blame gamers for saying the ps3 is way more powerful, cause they just saying what they see. yeah gears of war is up there i suppose, and alan wake has potential, but there should be more like that on 360. mgr is a step in the right direction though.



- sun shining, friends arrived, i'm going out hehe -

-"We will see who will be laughing when a gameplay is out"



Yes we will, but first, I'd like to think we'd both be ENJOYING playing the game first.



-"and one more thing, u really have to listen carefully, he stated " we are AIMING" he never stated that it WILL have better graphics than mgs4"



Funny how you see the word AIMING but you ignore the word BETTER.



I typed out his words in my post, so read it again. Yes he says that's what they're aiming for, and of course it's an AIM since they're currently _making_ the game, so it's not done. He also says and I quote "it's not going to be the same, it's going to be BETTER".



So tell me, which part of "it's going to be BETTER" don't you understand Jac? He didn't say it MAY be better, he didn't say he hopes it's better, he says it's GOING TO BE BETTER. Fact. I've already stated we'll have to wait and see, but that IS what he said.



-"and did u really think they can top MGS4 graphics?"



Of course they can, show Konami some respect! EVERY dev learns to do things better the longer they work on the games systems. Uncharted 2 will have better graphics than the first game (and from what I've seen, it does), every GT game has had better graphics than the previous games, every main MGS game has had better graphics than the previous game. So yes, Konami can top the graphics of THEIR GAME MGS4. So like I said, show Konami some respect.



-"and the PS3 exclusive prove that the PS3 hardware is infact superior than the 360"



Nope, to touch on the point PS34ME made (I'll respond to him next), it proves PS3 has better exclusive devs than the 360.

u seem like a persistent fanboy, ok answer this question, y does sony brag about their system hardware capabilities (other than Blue ray) in press conferences such as E3, and M$ doesn't? and u see, press conferences like these give both companies a good opportunity to claim their pros and advantages about their system, then how come M$ never seem to talk about their hardware capabilities or wut their hardware can do, when their system (Xbox 360) has a better GPU and a better CPU than the PS3? y dont they brag that 360's hardware is superior than the PS3?

actually, if M$ is software, then how come they entered the hardware division, thats not the point here, they even bragged about their "XBOX" having a better hardware, the point is, Sony wants to present their console as the superior system this generation. the fact is, conferences like E3 is where gaming companies show off their products, M$ showed off their online services and features to present wut consumers will obtain when they purchase their product. for sony in the other hand, they wanted to show their system's hardware to prove that their console will last long and also will have better looking game on that specific system.



"So going back to the hardware, this is what Sony does. When they announced the PS2, they said, and I quote from their official website at the time "Imagine walking into a movie and taking part in real-time...this is the world you are about to enter". That's were all the Toy-story graphics assumptions came from. So tell me, do you consider PS2 graphics to be SO lifelike that it's like being in a movie? And don't get me started on their comments about the 'Emotion Engine'."



tsk tsk tsk, u still dont get it do u? in the generation when PS2 was released, yes, it was like walking in a movie, it was an introduction to amazing graphics compared to its predecessor (PSOne) , and it came before Xbox and gamecube, so again yes, sony was right about their quote. u r looking at their quote from a different perspective, u r looking at their quote from this generation, which is a massive flaw in ur theory.



"Moving to the PS3, at E3 2005, Sony claimed Cell was twice as powerful as Xenon, they claimed that RSX was twice as powerful as Xenos, they quoted "2 TFLOPS vs 1 TFLOP" to claim the PS3 was twice as powerful overall. And yet EVERY dev who has experience of both consoles says they are very close to each other in terms of power."



im sorry, "EVERY dev"? i beg to differ, where is the proof? oh and its "1.8TFLOPS vs 240 GFLOPS" and its true, for proof, search it for urself.



"Who said the 360 has a better CPU? No-one. The conclusion has been that both CPUs have their strengths and weaknesses, and so overall for games, those strengths balance out to roughly equal performance overall. Even the designer of the CPUs says this. For the GPUs, devs say each has it's strengths and weaknesses, but this again balances out in games. As it is, floating-point performance is increasingly important for games, so that gives Cell a slight edge over Xenon. Likewise the advanced features of Xenos gives that GPU a slight edge over RSX. So again, they balance out."



im sorry, "so that gives Cell a slight edge over Xenon."? ok which is higher, 3.2GHz X 3 or 3.2GHz X 7? and don't u know anything, if RSX is optimized with CELL proper, yes, it is twice as powerful that Xenon, if its not optimized proper then Xenon has the lead in terms of AA; for things like shaders, yes, Xenos has more shaders and is unified, but, CELL aids RSX in terms of shaders (this doesn't require proper optimization) and increases it, for proof, check it urself or go to http://www.haxnetwork.net/showthread.php?t+5623+highlight+PS3+hardware%3A+Explained, and yes it is a forum, but! the person who explained the PS3 hardware provided sources, which makes him credible.



"This extends to the disc storage too, where Blu-ray 's advantage is it's superior capacity, but DVD's advantage is it's superior speed. Blu-ray's slower speed is helped by HDD installation for games. DVD's lack of storage is helped by multiple discs."



proof? games like uncharted 2, killzone2, and COD and upcoming PS3 dont need a mandatory install, its there to get better performance and not because the blue ray drive is slow, for example, GTA4 on ps3 has less pop-in textures due to the mandatory install.



"So why would MS brag that the 360 is superior hardware when they know it's on par with the PS3? Like I said, MS are mostly a software company, hence you will hear them bragging about their XBox Live service, the 360's OS, their software tools for game

I have to admit, I'm with Jez in this discussion, not only because of what he's saying, but because he backs it up his views with links (and some very interesting ones).



Jac, with all due respect, when it comes to technical matters, you really don't know what you're talking about. Every technical argument you've put forward here has been wrong and not only that, you haven't provided proof of any of them. That's what I look for in these discussions.



For example, in your most recent post you said; "oh and its "1.8TFLOPS vs 240 GFLOPS" and its true, for proof, search it for urself".



As always you tell people to search for it themselves, well, most don't need to search, because any gamer old enough will remember the claim of "2 TFLOPS vs 1 TLOP" from E3 2005, as it was repeated all over the internet and in magazines at the time.



Here's one from IGN, one of many 1000s of links which mentions this information;



http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614783p1.html



Common sense alone should have told you that it can't be 1.8TFlops vs 240GFlops, because that would mean the PS3 is 7.5 times more powerful than the 360. So either you made that up, or you mis-read it from somewhere and highlights your lack of technical knowledge. Where's the link you got your info from btw?



You also said "ok which is higher, 3.2GHz X 3 or 3.2GHz X 7? and don't u know anything"



As Jez showed, for the maths units it's 3.2GHz * 3 in 360 vs 3.2Ghz * 6 in PS3, so the PS3 is higher for maths, but for main code it's 3.2Ghz *3 in 360 vs 3.2Ghz *1 in PS3. So the 360 is higher for main code.



To sum up, Xenon in 360 is like having a Cell chip with 3 PPEs + 3 SPEs, compared to 1 PPE + 6 SPEs in the PS3 (the 7th SPE used for operating system only).



I expect that's why the guy who designed both processors says they are about equal, and I don't think anyone here is in a position to say he's wrong about his processors.



Jac, you also said "the person who explained the PS3 hardware provided sources, which makes him credible".



And Jez provided sources on this forum, so by your logic, that makes him credible too. No my friend, people on forums are NOT credible sources for such information. They never have been and never will be.



Now I'll add what I know, and that's about Blu-ray being slower than the 360's DVD drive. This is true and is a well known fact Jac, and it's not slow, it's just slowER. It has been stated by devs over the years and tests with multiplatform games has proven this, with the PS3 only beating the 360 load times when the HDD install option is selected. Although gamers can now install whole 360 games onto the HDD to improve load times even further.



I think I'll break here because I'm not sure how many characters QJ allows in a post and I don't want the end cut off (QJ should have a character count like many other websites).

ps3 has 7 SPEs in total, it doesn't matter if one works for OS, but there r seven in total. and i am correct about 1.8TFLOPS vs 240GFLOPS, heres the proof, http://heavyweaponsguy.com/?p+11.



"And Jez provided sources on this forum, so by your logic, that makes him credible too. No my friend, people on forums are NOT credible sources for such information. They never have been and never will be."



hehehe, the evidence Jez presented never proved that 360 is better than PS3 in terms of hardware, u got pwned.

Thanks for the support, but I CAN fight my own battles you know, and you are not exactly helping with the attacks. But yeah, I think he's a kid too, but what was that you were saying about we should lighten up? Hmmm, pot and kettle come to mind. :-D



Also, I don't think this is wasting my time, it may not sound like it but, I enjoy this kind of thing. :-D

Again from YOUR self-pwning link;



http://heavyweaponsguy.com/?p+11 (change the + character to equals)



"Remember we had a discussion early about Ops per Clock? Well the 360 GPU does FAR more Ops per Clock than the RSX does%u2026 information is as followed



Xbox 360 %u2013 500 Million Triangles/sec



PS3 %u2013 275 Million Triangles/sec



Vertex Shader Processing....



Shader Model



Xbox 360 %u2013 Shader Model 3.0+ / Unified Shader Architecture



PS3 %u2013 Shader Model 3.0 / Discrete Shader Architecture



Xbox 360 has the advantage in most cases."



So tell me Jac, how is this supporting your claims again?

But not 'everybody knows' PS3 is superior to the 360, many like yourself simply assume it is. Sony told them, so they believe it. But developers got their hands on the hardware and told a different story, a story we see played out in multi-format games and developer interviews. The say both consoles are roughly on par with each other, and therefore it's up to the devs to get the most out of the hardware.



So let's just say we have to agree to disagree on that point.



As for the link you gave. Yes I agree, it's not a credible source, but surely you couldn't expect me to let you off so lightly for making such an 'error'. But at least you now accept that forum posts are not credible sources.



-"if RSX is optimized with CELL properly, it can become twice as powerful than the 360"



Which is really a leap of faith on your part. Yes if you use the SPEs for graphics together with RSX, then you can potentially achieve higher graphical performance than Xenon in certain areas, but not twice the performance!



However, using the SPEs for graphics takes away the power available for OTHER areas, such as physics. You can't have it both ways. If you dedicate say 2 SPEs for graphics, than that's 2 SPEs lost for use in other areas of the game. So again it all balances out.



And yes, I've watched the demos of Cell being used for graphics, but it's nothing new. Before 3D Graphics cards, ALL PC graphics were produced by software rendering. On my PC for example, I've still got Unreal Tournament 2004 installed, and it has an option for software rendering, hence ALL the graphics are being produced by the Intel CPU alone in this mode, not the graphics card.



BTW, the first PS3 game to make use of the SPEs for graphics was Warhawk, where they were used to created all the volumetric clouds in the game. Killzone 2 is one of the latest, where it uses the SPEs for the post-processing effects and for the lighting calculations.



And I accept your 'predecessor' comment was just an error.



I also accept you posted the wrong link (do you have the 'correct' link btw?), but his post would not have been credible even if he did provide sources, since it was just a forum post. However, if any of the sources he mentioned were credible, then we could have used those to further the discussion.



-"so to conclude, PS3 has an amazing house power, and if can't be used properly then the results will be not so forgiving. so the reason why some 360 multiplat look better is because its easier to work on the 360. and not necessarily because of its hardware."



And for once, with that statement of yours, I'm in agreement with you, although I expect there are still differences in our views of the hardware itself, so I won't push it.



But then again, as far as others are concerned, I could be just talking to myself here.

Again, regarding power, I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm pleased you've provided a credible source this time, thanks for that (if you keep doing that in future instead of forum links, then your posts will be far better).



Yes, I've read those comments from EA, in fact, EA have been making similar comments since the start of this gen, remember the claim of using only 20 percent of the PS3's power back in 2006?



http://kotaku.com/221137/ea-games-use-20-percent-of-ps3s-power



Now here's my problem with this kind of statement and the statement you mentioned, if EA are going to make such comments, then the sayings which comes to mind is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" and "Show me the money". In other words, don't tell us EA, SHOW us.



Like the PS2, the PS3 has an image of having 'untapped power' waiting to be unleached, and numerous people within the gaming industry believe this (usually not the programmers however).



Hence I don't think you would disagree with me if I said that if Patrick is right, then we should start to see EA games where the PS3 version is superior to the 360 version, and the gap should widen in the coming years. Correct? In fact, we should start to see a difference this year for EA games because he says "We'll see developers inside [Electronic Arts] getting to understand the PS3 better and we're getting more power out of PS3 right now."



That last quote btw was not from Infinity Ward as you stated, but was in fact also from EA's Patrick Soderland, as reported here;



http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/ea-xbox-360-gaming-maxed-out-but-not-ps3-606953



Therefore let's see what happens with EA games. Is he blowing hot air, or is there some truth to his words? Only time will tell.

Every developer *should* be pushing the consoles to the limits with their games, that's how to get the best out of them, but that doesn't mean the console is maxed out (as commonly reported). New techniques, optimizations, and ideas always provides ways to get more out of the SAME hardware (i.e. blood out of a stone). Naughty Dog, who got some of the best graphics out of the PS2 last gen (and PS3 this gen), described it perfectly on their website some years back;



http://www.naughtydog.com/jak1/20Questions.htm



"Q) What percent of the PS2's power are you using?

A) People think of systems as glasses and ask: "how full is the glass". Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. Any developer who gives you a "percent of system used" answer is blowing smoke. The truth is that every developer uses 100% of the systems power on every game. Some just get more out of that 100% than others. And game after game, we ALL get more out of systems than we did on the previous title.....We just get more and more out of the 100%".



Hence Infinity Ward are using ALL of the 360's hardware, where no part of it is sitting idle or underused. That's maxing out a console. But that doesn't mean MW2 marks the end, since if there's a MW3, it will look/perform even better than MW2, and hence the devs would have gotten more out of the hardware.



But going back to my previous post, we have to see how the PS3 version compares, and from what I've read, it will look and perform exactly the same as the 360 version.



http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,691432/Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2-on-consoles-with-600p-only/News/



Regarding Crysis, I'm not sure of the comparison you're referring to, since the game has yet to be released and the word from the Crytek is that both versions (360 and PS3) will look and perform the same;



http://www.develop-online.net/news/32077/No-clear-difference-between-360-and-PS3-versions-of-Crysis-2-says-Crytek

-"And for the guy thinking sony has better developers, I LOLed at you"



Was that directed at me or Jac.



As I mentioned earlier, Sony does have better exclusive developers when it comes to *pushing* the hardware (Guerilla, Naughty Dog, Polyphony etc), hence it's not a statement about gameplay (that's a different discussion). So yes, Killzone 2 is a FPS which doesn't add anything new to the genre in terms of gameplay, but you can't deny that it's one of the games that really pushes the PS3's hardware with impressive results. 360 has far fewer exclusive games pushing the hardware in the way seen with KZ2, Uncharted1/2 and MGS4 on the PS3.



Hence given MGS4 on the PS3, I'm looking forward to seeing what Konami can do on the 360 (and PS3) with MG Rising, since they say it will look better.



Final Fantasy XIII will also be interesting on both consoles, since SE says it will use nearly 100 percent of the PS3's power;



http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/03/square-enix-ffxiii-to-use-100-of-ps3s-power.ars



Guess this means the PS3 is about to hit a wall too then Jac? Or instead, would you agree with Naughty Dog that devs will get more out of that '100%' in future games, and hence maxing out a console TODAY does not mean it's the limit of the console's capabilities, but rather the maximum they can CURRENTLY get of the hardware.



-"in the end its actually the developers who make games for us not these people."



Correct, which is why you'll find many of the links I've provided as evidence here are actually comments from the developers themselves (for both games and hardware). In other words, credible links from those 'who make games for us'.



-"IF the games are better on ps3(which is not always not true)why arent they selling good?"



Well, better is subjective but, haven't you ever enjoyed a game which hadn't sold well, or bought a game that you hated and yet it sold millions? And not just games, books, movies, albums, gadgets etc. Hence we shouldn't look at sales as a measure of quality, since there are many factors involved.

this is a question you need to ask ps3 fanboys(such as your self) cuz they prefer the ps3 to be more "s*xier" compared to the 360

-"Ps3 has a better hardware than the 360, that is a fact"



No, that's an opinion, not a fact."



how the ***** can that be an opinion? ok, if i say Killzone 2 is better than halo 3, thats an opinion, or if i say PS3 is better than 360, thats also an opinion, but the fact is, many devs including infinity ward, EA, Crytek and of course sony stated that u can get more performance out of the PS3 than u can get in any other system this generation. and i believe in wut sony stated cuz, if they were to lie, they would have gotten their asses sued because basically its a scam if u lie about ur product, thats y i trust them, and thats y other ppl do too.



"*Sigh*, Jac, saying it's true just 'because Sony said so' only makes you sound naive. So just because Sony says so then it MUST be true? Come on. As I mentioned already, Sony always did this with their consoles, just as MS brags in similar ways when announcing a new operating system. To be more exact, this was actually Ken Kutaragi's style (bragging whilst attacking the opposition). Once Ken retired, things changed, and now Sony focusses more on promoting the PS3 as a console and highlighting it's games.



So by all means hold on to your view of massive PS3 superiority over the 360 if you want to, but Sony saying so is NOT proof of this.



Oh and btw, MS did challenge Sony's power claims from E3 2005;



Read the following from MS's Major Nelson on 20th May 2005;



http://majornelson.com/archive/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4.aspx



http://majornelson.com/archive/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-2-of-4.aspx



http://majornelson.com/archive/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-3-of-4.aspx



http://majornelson.com/archive/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-4-of-4.aspx



Where it ends with;



"CONCLUSION

When you break down the numbers, Xbox 360 has provably more performance than PS3. Keep in mind that Sony has a track record of over promising and under delivering on technical performance."



Well, Microsoft said it, so it MUST be true. ;-D



Now do you see why you can't trust the manufacturers when talking about their own products in this way?"



im sorry but they where proven false, and everybody knows that, cuz that hardware comparison was created even before the ps3 released, the graphs are just estimates, nothing more and nothing less, i cant believe u still believe which console has a better hardware basing on that article, and i cant believe that u used that article as ur proof, WOW just WOW, better luck next time kiddo. oh and sony wants ps3 to succeed as a multimedia device. and u still don't get it do u? wut M$ brags about is also true. and now do u see wut happens when u provide false info? hehehe lol at u.



"That's completely untrue. Why do you insist on making up information Jac?. Both versions (PS3 and 360) pale in comparison to the PC version, as we would expect, but they still look good with different compromises made to EACH version. Where the PS3 is better in some areas (shadows, shiny textures), the 360 version is better in others (environmental detail, framerate)."



r u *****ing kidding me? ok, u sent me the link about the face-offs created by digital foundry right? the guy who made those face-offs is a *****ing xbot (Richard), because u know y? there is a cod waw face off, and he said that the 360 version has better textures, visual effects and other things, but the fact is, if u watch the comparison, u WILL notice that the PS3 version of the game has far more better visuals in terms of textures and other things compared to the inferior version of the 360. he also stated that the 360 version has better and more consistent frame rate, which is not true, because if u watch the frame rate comparison, u will notice that when the frame rate on the 360 version of the game dips, the ps3 version stays consistent and higher than the 360, so in frame rate, both versions have inconsistent frame rate, but overall, in graphical perspective, PS3 has an advantage. and thats because Teryack managed to optimize their engine on CELL properly. so to conclude, PS3 has a bet

And before you respond, please take some extra time to try to understand what you've read this time, otherwise your laughter only makes you appear foolish. Thanks.



(Still can't believe you thought I was providing that link from Microsoft as proof of the 360's power, rather than as proof that MS DID challenge Sony (when you claimed they didn't) and to show that you can't trust what the companies say when comparing their products to others. Sony included!).

So let's pick up one point this time (since you seem to have difficulties managing multiple comments). Let's consider your claims that the PS3 version of COD:WAW is significantly superior to the 360 version. Well now, if that's the case, I expect the numerous gaming websites will noticed that in their reviews. So let's have a look -



How about IGN;



http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/929/929174p2.html



"Given that it uses the Modern Warfare engine, World at War looks every bit as good on both the PC and the Xbox 360. The PlayStation 3 version suffers a bit more from aliasing, but that's mainly it."



Oops, I guess we better look elsewhere then. How about 1UP? Shame, they don't compare them. Gamespot? No comparison again. Eurogamer, no you'll only call them biased.



Ah well, I'll try a few sites using Google and Metacritics to see what I can find;



http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/01/10/call-of-duty-world-at-war-xbox-360-vs-ps3/



"There are a few differences, but for the most part both versions are practically the same. Treyarch has done an excellent job of making both versions nearly identical."



Ah, again, not what you want to hear. Ok, I'll try again;



http://www.gamechronicles.com/reviews/ps3/codwaw/codwaw.htm



"The PS3 does suffer from aliasing issues which lends itself to jaggies and occasional shimmering. It's not horrible but it is noticeable when stacked next to the PC and 360 versions."



Oh dear, they all seem to disagree with you, which is no surprise since COD:WAW uses an enhanced version of the COD4 engine!



Keep searching and you'll find the same results I've found Jac. NO-ONE says the PS3 version "looks absolutely astonishing compared to the 360", in fact, of all the websites I've found, no-one says the PS3 version is better than the 360 version. At best, most say they're the same, at worse, some have issues with aliasing and framerate issues in the PS3 version, but nothing major.



So the PS3 version of COD:WAW is absolutely nothing like the claims you made about it. It's on par with the 360 version. Fact. So either you were mistaken (as usual it seems), or you were simply pulling facts out of your rear end (again).



I'm done for the moment. In the meantime, keep digging that hole you're in, you seem to enjoy it down there.

They just stated year ago that due of xbox 360 DVD9 size they would probably Downscaled Megatextures size for Xbox 360 to pack them all on DVD, and stated that because of this downscale PS3 version will look better since its textures would not be downscaled to save space (lol usually all PS3 game have textures downscaled compared to 360).



But not they decide to use 2 disks for 360 version to avoid this downscale of megatextures so now Xbox 360 version would looks better since they dont downscale megatextures anymore.



thats simple, dont u understand this? how old r u? 10?

I dont care about all this PS3 vs 360 crap, because they all retarted comparing to PC and im going to play RAGE on pc, and suggest everyone to do the same, if u not agree just screw you guys, im going home.