6-Core, 12-Core?

[The_wand_mirror]

I founds something on the wikipedia's!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_G34

Sure you could see it coming but now you know.

Although... wiki?

 

[General Frank]

Not that new to me. I read about it a year ago that the new processors going to be very variable in their given jobs.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

PS3 got 8-core

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

The PS3 is awesome.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

The PS3 is awesome.

Indeed. It's pure win

 

[Dr Super Good]

PS3 has 7 core... You 2 obviously do not know the slightest about it.

Normal cell processors are 8 core, but inorder to lower cost one of the processors was disabled in the PS3 so it is 7 core. On top of that one is locked for the OS so game can only use 6 cores. Remember that each instruction does less than a PC instruction so to do the same opperation as a PC cycle, it may need many cycles. If you consider this the PS3 is not fast at all.

Also that is a server socket... Ofcourse you can get a 6-12 core processor but it will cost you 3-8 thousand dollars... Do not think it is for personal use at all and infact it may run games quite poorly (as servers generally need less intense syncronization than PC ones) although I could be wrong.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

PS3 has 7 core... You 2 obviously do not know the slightest about it.

I've actually read an article about it and it says it got 8 cores (all of them active). I also confirmed it with wikipedia, because I didn't first believe it.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I've actually read an article about it and it says it got 8 cores (all of them active). I also confirmed it with wikipedia, because I didn't first believe it.

The PS3 uses the Cell microprocessor, which is made up of one 3.2 GHz PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and six accessible Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). A seventh runs in a special mode and is dedicated to aspects of the OS and security, and an eighth is a spare to improve production yields.

Well it appears you can not read in this case as that is the only explination for you missing this.
Yes it uses 8 processing elements out of the 9 on a cell processor, but do not think that is everything.
One of the simple processing elements is locked for OS and security which also partly loads the main processor of the cell, the net result is only 6 and most of another processing elements being available to games.

Now the real problem is that those complete 6 processing elelments are prety usless at a lot of tasks as they are a lot simpler than the remaining one. Afterall the cell is designed for throughput of data and not performing complex actions on data. Thus the remainder of the one processor is used to control the other 6 processing elements which make up most of the games you play. This however means a lot of multi threaded opperations are needed, which is good for physics but poor for tightly syncronized opperations. This is why PS3 games tend to be simple with a lot of physics or easilly repetitive tasks like AI.

Basically, for you technical people the cell is made of 1 multithreaded PPE and 8 SPE (9 Processing Elements). 1 SPE is disabled meaning 8 Processing elements. One SPE and some of the PPE is used by the OS. The remaining 6 SPE and most of the PPE are available for your games to use. Due to the threading requirements, programming PS3 games is hard as hell and they are not efficent for some kinds of gamming action (so all the speed is usable) however it does do physics.

On the other hand the Xbox 360 uses 3 PPEs (YES the same or simlar to the cell's as they are both from IBM). Taking into account that these are faster than the SPEs (6.4 GFLOPS double for PPE and 1.8 GFLOPS for SPE) this means the 360 actually has better double float performance than the PS3 for games to use and as it only has 3 cores it is easier to thread for (although each has HT which can be used for aditional performance during normally wasted cycles for suff like physics).

Take that PS3 fanboys hehe.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Take that PS3 fanboys hehe.

Lol. The xbox 360 makes more noise than the PS3 and it can't play Blu Ray Discs which is the kind of discs we use now, and not HD DVDs which the xbox uses. Also, you need to buy a HD DVD player for the xbox separately while the PS3 got a built-in BD DVD player. You can actually install Linux on the PS3. The PS3 slim comes with a 250GB harddisk while the biggest one you can get for the xbox is at 120GB. And last, but not least, from the information I got about the xbox 360 it seems it's CPU is worse than mine.
xbox 360: Triple-Core @ 3.2GHz
Me: Quad-Core @ 3.51 GHz
It only got 512MB RAM @ 700 MHz and the xbox 360 only got resolution up to 1080i while the ps3 got up to 1080p (pretty small difference though).
The ps3 got a similar cpu, but 7 (8, but one is reserved for redundancy) cores instead of 3, and based on the specs I found on several sites it seems like the ps3 > xbox in CPU and RAM. The overall system floating-point performance of the xbox 360 is 1 TFLOPS while the ps3 got 1.8 TFLOPS.

Take that xbox fanboys

 

[Dr Super Good]

Please research more carefully.
Both consoles have 512 MB RAM...
The 360 has 512 MB shaired between graphics and CPU.
The PS3 has 256 MB Graphics and 256 CPU.

The 360 wins RAM wise as its shaired RAM lets you use more than 256 MB for graphics without slowing down (which the PS3 does so it is avoided) when you do not need that much for the actual game engine (which is partly why 360 has better textures).

The 360 has major storage medium problems, HD-DVD is dead if you did not bother to read and it has been for 3 years. Thus the end result is it is the only problem area of the 360. They really should have built HD-DVD into the machine then it would be on par with PS3 games (as they only are single layer blu-ray which is 15 GB odd).

Me: Quad-Core @ 3.51 GHz

Well duh, dont think the PS3 suck against that as well. The 3.2 GHz on the cell is the PPE, the SPEs are much slower (like 1/3 the speed). Fact is one PPE and 6 SPE (cell in PS3) are slower than 3 PPEs (xenon in 360) in double float precision. Thus emulation is not implausable any more, we could obtain brobably 1/4 real speed on modern hardware if optomized.

Both 360 and PS3 do up to 1080p, but most games are only 720p as their graphic hardware is not strong enough to do good graphics at that res. Only the orignal 360s like my 360 core did 1080i only as microsoft only added the HDMI port to later units (so the best was component cables).

Because the cell was made for single floting point operations, it will be faster than the 360 but games are not just single floats. You will find that with general complex game opperations they are probably on par because the PS3 wastes more syncronizing and is not dealing so much with flop (although it will still do quite a lot).

 

[The Reborn Devil]

The xbox 360 makes more noise than the PS3 and it can't play Blu Ray Discs which is the kind of discs we use now, and not HD DVDs which the xbox uses. Also, you need to buy a HD DVD player for the xbox separately while the PS3 got a built-in BD DVD player. You can actually install Linux on the PS3. The PS3 slim comes with a 250GB harddisk while the biggest one you can get for the xbox is at 120GB.
The overall system floating-point performance of the xbox 360 is 1 TFLOPS while the ps3 got 1.8 TFLOPS.

The xbox still sucks there though and the PS3's RAM is faster (at least some of it). 265 MB is at 700 MHz and the other is at 2,something (I think it's 2,8) GHz.
I've also heard somewhere (I haven't confirmed this) that the xbox uses more electricity and sometimes it actually starts to burn (this happened with some of my friends). Also, the xbox doesn't have any games I like which I can't get on my computer and I'll rather by the game for my computer than buying an xbox as my computer is better.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I seriously doubt you can tell which RAM is faster... Clock frequency is only part of it, there are factors like axcess architecture and latencty as well to consider.

Any problems with the 360 combusting are total lies or caused by people abusing their consols. Yes mine does have heating problems if I play for too long causing some ingame erros despite adding extra fans but it runs stabily for hours with no problems and is in an area with restricted airflow. As mine is very old core model it is hardly a standard to base the whole 360 consol on, all newer 360s chew less power and make less heat so overheating is no longer an issue. I can only imagine it overheating if it is in a bad location (against a wall) or in a hot climate (35 degreec celcius). Generally putting extra fans to blow air away from the back to stop localised heating up will eliminate all heating issues alltogether.

The whole problem is most of the games worth getting overlap with the PS3, thus you eithor have one or the other as there is little needed to get both. Even FFXIII is comming for both Xbox 360 and PS3 at the same time in europe and america. Again this proves how simlar their hardware is that they can run the same next generation games (although it is a 4 dual layer DVD set for the Xbox 360).

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Any problems with the 360 combusting are total lies or caused by people abusing their consols.

They had the first version of the xbox 360 and from what they told me they first got some artifacts on the screen and then it turned black. After that something which was lying right next to it caught fire. They had been playing for a while though, but it should be able to withstand that. And no, it was not abused, but it was standing in a corner in the living room.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The old consols for both PS3 and Xbox 360 are well known to overheat. This is why I have an additional fan blowing hot air away from the back of my consol. Yes it gets warm but you can touch the back of the console at all times and it will be no hotter than standing in the sun. Like I mentioned this problem has been fixed with new models of the 360 as they chew less power and produce less heat.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Bit of a side-note, but the X-Box 360 is a lot cheaper than the PS3.

I'd rather see a decrease in prices than new, expensive technology popping up all the time. P:
Besides, wouldn't more cores create more heat? .. heh, I reckon a few years back, when they made the 45nm (?) and concluded they would need to find new ways of improving processors, like starting to use organisms and shit.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

The human mind is just awesome.
Brain > 80-core cpu @ 9THz

 

[Dr Super Good]

Not true, human brains use neural networks which work out solutions from learning.
Learning is done by changing paths and weights chemically.
Solutions the brain makes do not have to be reproducable and accurate.

On the other hand, digical logic will always produce the same results if working correctly. It will also produce results by following a fixed and defined process. Digital data also tends to be more stable and recallable than neural network data (do you remember something you learnt at school like highschool chemisty? Will you remember it in 70 years time?). They are totally different methods of opperation for totally different purposes. If neural networks were as good as you say they are, why do we even need computers in the first place as we have our brains...

 

[The Reborn Devil]

We only use 4% of our brain.

 

[Crazed_seal2]

Dudes, u guys went off topic like heaps.
It ended up with XBOX 360 (Which is awesome) Vs PS3 (Which is awesome) then somehow information on the brain X_X

 

[BlargHonk]

I founds something on the wikipedia's!

I found moar stuff!

Lol. The xbox 360 makes more noise than the PS3 and it can't play Blu Ray Discs which is the kind of discs we use now, and not HD DVDs which the xbox uses. Also, you need to buy a HD DVD player for the xbox separately while the PS3 got a built-in BD DVD player. You can actually install Linux on the PS3.

Hmmm, Noise? What noise, fock, my damn TV makes more noise than my 1st Gen Xbox, and Blu-Ray, hmmm, Notice that alot of the things that made PS3's break was the Blu-Ray drive failing? Go look at the failure rate on those damn things. (don't mention RROD, fixed)

And the SAME Blu-Ray that almost no one buys?

The PS3 slim comes with a 250GB harddisk while the biggest one you can get for the xbox is at 120GB.

You clearly missed the 250GB MW2 Edition Xbox, didn't you.

And last, but not least, from the information I got about the xbox 360 it seems it's CPU is worse than mine.
xbox 360: Triple-Core @ 3.2GHz
Me: Quad-Core @ 3.51 GHz

Yes, your processor made in 2008 beats a processor made in 2005, bravo man, Bravo.


Oh hai, we can do GPU comparison too: RSX vs Xenos (Yes, supergood is supporting ATI)

Lets pull up some articles: http://www.ps3power.com/xbox-ati-vs-ps3-rsx.htm
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-1926226.php
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33876428


, the Rage3D one is good too, the PS3 might actually have less CPU power

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Yes, your processor made in 2008 beats a processor made in 2005, bravo man, Bravo.

The PS3's processor beats mine. No matter what kind of insane technical shit you throw at me about this and that you can't deny the fact that the PS3's processor is better than mine which is better than the xbox's processor.
And there's no point in being sarcastic.

 

[BlargHonk]

Here's further proof of the 360's superiority to the ps3:

According to IBM’s white pages, the cell processor being used in the ps3 is considerably less powerful than what it has been hyped up to be.
Sony officially revealed the PS3 and for the first time at E3 2005, and claimed that their Cell processor would be capable of 200 GFLOPS.
One may wonder how they got that figure?  IBM's own white pages:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork...ca=drs-#table4
As seen from the link (in Figure 5) the Cell has a theoretical peak of 201 GFLOP’s– running 8 SPE’s at 25.12 GFLOP’s apiece (Table 2). This is where Sony gets their 200 GFLOP figure from.

When physically tested however, only 155.5 GFLOP’s were actually achieved (see Table 4) with a total efficiency rate of 75.9%.
Because of manufacturing yield issues, the PS3 will only use 7 SPE’s with the theoretical peak for the PS3’s Cell processor being reduced to 176 GFLOP’s, each running at 25.12 GFLOP’s. Utilizing the same 75.9% efficiency, it is easily interpolated that the PS3’s Cell CPU will only be capable of 133.6 GFLOP’s.

The Xbox 360 has 3 general-purpose 2-threaded CPU's, which generates a proven 115.2 GFLOP’s which is dramatically easier for developers to utilize. By now it should be pathetically obvious that sony is no where near as far ahead as they try to lead you to think (keep in mind they claimed that the ps2 was more powerful than the original xbox, but were proven wrong publicly, since the xbox was indeed twice as powerful). The ps3 will, once you have taken into account thetotal amount of resources that will be used by their respective operating systems, end up with less CPU power available for graphical and physics processing than the 360.


http://ps3.qj.net/Inside-the-PS3-s-O...g/49/aid/21047
According to the (unbiased) site above, the PS3 will also constantly reserve 1 SPE** for running its operating system. Now that there is actually one less SPE reserved for gaming purposes, it is definite that the ps3’s cell will only be capable of 114.4 GFLOP’s for the purpose of game processing.

**SPE’s are floating point processors, they are also called DSP’s, and SPU’s. These floating point processors are NOT to be confused with cores, cores have far more prediction and calculation braches than floating point processors. As stated earlier, the 360 has 3 cores, each running at 3.2GHz, with 2 threads each. The cell also runs at 3.2GHz, but is the one and only core that the ps3 has.

QQ Moar, PS3 Sucks.

And Actually read, no TL;DR

Edit: Source was posted in my above post, but here it is again: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33876428

 

[Dr Super Good]

(Yes, supergood is supporting ATI)

Only cause I got this consol free and there is no nvidia version. Keep in mind the orignal Xbox did use an nvidia graphic chip and that was still superiour to the PS2.

The 360 vs PS3 graphically is very hard. In several situations the PS3 will win graphically due to its brute power. The 7800 series cards can do decent graphics and the PS3 uses a slightly fine tuned one. For example the PS3 can do...

Maximum Dot product operations: 51 billion per second

Wilte the 360...

Maximum Dot product operations: 24 billion per second

So how come the 360 is graphically superiour most of the time...
Well its due to the fact that its graphic processor is tightly incorperated into the system while the 360 basically has its arranged like a normal PCs. While the PS3 has to slow down massivly to use more than 256 MB RAM for graphics the 360 shairs both its graphic and main memory space at all times meaning graphics can easilly go beyond 256 MB without any slow down (keep in mind both systems have the same total of 512 MB RAM). The 360 also has almost totally free AntiAliasing which makes the resulting image look better, inorder for the PS3 to achieve this it has to apply AA the same way you do on your PC which will slow it down into almost parity if not slower than the 360.

Thus long story short, the PS3 only looks better when rendering a lot of poorly rendered geometry with low res textures (killzone 2 I believe did this). The 360 however looks better when rendering a decent number of highquality pixels as it can use higher res textures (what count) and the edges of geometry look better (also what counts).

Thus 360 relies on textures for detail, PS3 for geometry for detail.

As for the whole FFXIII argument which is going on around the internet. A lot of people say FFXIII will look shit on the 360 but are forgetting that the 360 may benifit from larger textures (RPGs do not need much RAM) and the edges will look better. Only time will tell if that is the case but I will be sure to post once it is out here.

 

[BlargHonk]

Don't forget the Xbox is better in the Shading Department, Unified Shader Architecture ftw

Nvidia is a bit of an idiot sometimes \/

Nvidia have previously stated in public that they do not believe that
unified shader architectures are the way forward.

And here

I mean seriously, They think I will buy a GPU because it has CUDA? Fuck no


It seems every time ATI gets something out that Nvidia doesn't have, Nvidia denies it's usefulness, then releases a product with it, it is getting a bit old.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Instead of posting all kinds of information about this and that from other pages you should try explaining why the PS3's processor is better than mine (which I know it is) which also happens to be better than the xbox's processor. I tried a PS3 game on my computer and on the PS3 (they released a computer version of it too) and I got way better performance on the PS3.

Now you're probably going to say "the cpu got nothing to do with that" (with 50 more words of course).
It got something to do with it, but the GPU does most of it (on computers that is), but as far as I see my GPU beats the PS3's GPU, and I got more RAM. So there's got to be something in it which explains why I get better performance on the PS3.

My specs in case you have forgotten:
AMD Phenom II quad-core Black Edition @ 3.51 GHz
HIS Radeon HD 5750 with 1GB dedicated memory and DirectX 11
3GB RAM @ 1333 MHz
And don't come saying "You only got 3GB RAM?!". I'm going to upgrade it, and yes, I'm going to get Windows 7 too. AND YES, I'm getting a bigger screen (22" Full-HD BenQ screen. Screen resolution 1920x1080).

Oh, you're probably going to think something like "He probably used a small screen when testing the PS3". No, I didn't. I tested it on a screen which is 32" or something and Full-HD and I used the HDMI-cable too. I forgot to say that it was PS3 Slim It's better than the old PS3 which most of those tests are based on.

 

[BlargHonk]

Oh, you're probably going to think something like "He probably used a small screen when testing the PS3". No, I didn't. I tested it on a screen which is 32" or something and Full-HD and I used the HDMI-cable too. I forgot to say that it was PS3 Slim It's better than the old PS3 which most of those tests are based on.

No, but I am going to say, did you test it at the exact settings it is run on the PS3? PS3 doesn't run mutli-platform games maxed out, ever. Especially max AA/AF

 

[Dr Super Good]

The_Reborn_Devil, why the hell you bothering to compair your DX11 graphic card to the PS3... Your has 1 billion transistors for crying out loud and is capable of one teraflop per second. The PS3 can not even run most games at 1080i and instead does only 740p (some like GTA4 are an example of low res but not all games aka the simpsons game was 1080p). Your graphic card can run crysis at 1080p at near maximum with no stuttering, the PS3 will not even be near that.

Oh, you're probably going to think something like "He probably used a small screen when testing the PS3". No, I didn't. I tested it on a screen which is 32" or something and Full-HD and I used the HDMI-cable too. I forgot to say that it was PS3 Slim It's better than the old PS3 which most of those tests are based on.

Size does not mater, a 1337 inch screen can only have 4 pixels so please grow up and use a proper scientific measurement for screens (pixels). Also keep in mind you can set the display resolution lower than the native resolution so you should list that as well. Take a look at the game in question carefully, your PC may have it at 1080p but the PS3 is likly to say something like 740p on the box only as it is not powerful enough to run all games at 1080 (GTA4 is a good example).

I tried a PS3 game on my computer and on the PS3 (they released a computer version of it too) and I got way better performance on the PS3.

Was this game GTA4 by any chance? Keep in mid that although gameplay may be simlar between 2 games for the PC and its PS3/360 release but the inner workings can be totally different. For example GTA4 gets huge performance problems on PCs due to preloading 8-16 times more than the PS3/360 but you have a lot fewer loading breaks during gameplay. Some PC games were poor ports of the console versions like ghost busters the game, where the PC version lags on even the best hardware.

Thus mentioning the game would be good, games I advise testing are bioshock, tes oblivion or fallout 3, deadspace and such cross platform releases as they were made for PC and consolse and all of them perform better on PCs nowdays (TES oblivion can have AA on a 8800GT while the PS3 has no such thing to be seen).

Also remember max on the PC version is often better than the displayed level on the consols (usually medium - low end of high only) in which case the comparision is unfair.

You forgot to mention what OS you were on, if it is XP only then dont complain as that OS has multi core problems and no DX10/11. Also do note that some games have problems with power house processors and tend to use them rather badly (eg the I7). To fix you have to clamp the game to only a certain number of processors and everything performs well (ghostbusters the game).

The PS3 processor may only be better than yours in flops as the cell was designed for flop throughput, but flops are not everything.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

" a 1337 inch screen can only have 4 pixels so please grow up and use a proper scientific measurement for screen"
I did. I said it was Full-HD which means there's at least 1080 pixels on the y axis "xxxx*1080" in case you didn't know.

I'll give some more information since you obviously try to find each and every little lack of detail or just ignore what I said or skip some parts.
The game I tested is called Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. The settings were higher on the PS3. The PS3 was set on 1080p. The resolution I had on my screen was 1280x1024 and before you say anything, read this:

AND YES, I'm getting a bigger screen (22" Full-HD BenQ screen. Screen resolution 1920x1080).

The screen resolution on the screen I had the PS3 connected to was most likely 1920x1080, but I'm not entirely sure. I did however get a slightly better fps on my PC, but that was caused by the fact that
1. Smaller resolution (1280x1024 just in case you missed that part)
2. Lower settings (The PS3 was set on higher settings. If you missed this too then consider reading my post again.)

So, since my computer obviously pwns the PS3 based on what you've said then WHY does the PS3 pwn my computer on many games? Answer that and you'll get a cookie.

Oh, and my OS is Windows XP SP 3 and before you say anything, YES, I know I don't have DX 10 or 11 yet I like saying I got support for DX 11.

 

[BlargHonk]

Force Unleashed has crappy PC optimization and therefore is not comparable, go run FO3

And to counter your comeback that the Sith Edition is for PC: Read it

 

[The Reborn Devil]

And to counter your comeback that the Sith Edition is for PC: Read it

I don't get those troubles they're talking about. And I don't need those extra options as it's already on max. It works great for me on the computer. And even better on the PS3 where the quality is for some reason better.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So, since my computer obviously pwns the PS3 based on what you've said then WHY does the PS3 pwn my computer on many games? Answer that and you'll get a cookie.

Consoles get more optimization, since they keep the same hardware. It's not unusual.

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Even if the PS3 is set to 1080p, it doesn't mean the game will play at 1080p. Also, afaik, Star Wars : The Force Unleashed was developed for consoles, and that could indicate a bad porting to the PC platform, resulting in worse performance on a stronger system. From where do you conclude the PS3 version run on higher settings though?

Running XP sets back the performance of your processor, especially considering you're running 32-bit. This obviously causes the game to perform worse as well.

High-end computers are generally much more powerful than consoles, perhaps they're stronger the first period after it is published, but computer technology is bound to take use of the newest technology, and thus surpass the consoles. You don't go about upgrading your console (apart from the few upgrades done to them by the manufacturers), the PS3 is already getting old.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

There was a lot more detail on the PS3 (yes, I know increased resolution helps, but that alone wasn't enough) and I could see longer (as in view distance). The only thing my computer bested it in was FPS and anti-aliasing. I had higher FPS and there were no sharp edges that I could see when playing on the computer, there were some when playing on the PS3 even though I had higher resolution on the PS3.
If the ps3 is set to 1080p and the game allows it, it will play at 1080p. The ps3 is not that old, the newest version came in 2009 just a few months ago.

 

[BlargHonk]

With the same damn main hardware

Only new thing was a die shrink and a rearranged motherboard, it uses less power but has the same performance.


And your not listening, it isn't optimized, and it is due to the PS3's GPU design that AA isn't as good as what it can be on a computer, it can't use much memory.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The fact that the game can not runs at worse quality than the PS3 when maxed points towards horriable porting. Infact it was probably ported badly especially to encourage people to buy the consol versions. There is no excuse for the PC version to have lower anything than the PS3 version but pure lazyness as the PS3 only has 0.5 GB or RAM, your PC has like 4GB of RAM (3 main and 1 GPU). Logically this instantly means better textures as you have like 4 times the space for them. Processor wise it is tricky, as the PS3 was designed for multi threaded applications while although your CPU is your OS is not. Also do note the PS3 processor uses reduced instruction sets so it can take it multiple cycles to do opperations your PC can do in one however this means it will be faster at certain raw computations (eg the PS3 may be better at encoding video into mpeg4 as that is what the cell was designed for).

The main problem is porting consol games to PC due to the differences in opperations. With the consols due to their standard hardware I would not be suprized if code is largly stored ready as machinecode for the systen to run, afterall each PS3 is identical structre wise to the next. For PC ports they may get the code to compile on the fly (for a precompiled state) which adds to loading time (especially if it loads code constantly instead of caching as the engine may do for the consols). The consols have fixed graphic hardware, thus to obtain the maximum they may use shortcuts which look good but are not demanding and only work due to the hardware layout (what most wii games from nintendo do). When porting to the PC however, these may get distorted to look ugly in which case they are removed or due to the oddness in layout of the render pipeline the graphics may be generated improperlly for PC systems resulting in huge ammounts of wasted time and so poor performance (consols can do some opperations with less wasted time due to smaller architecture where as PCs generally have to batch to process to compensate for it). Finally the graphic instructions are so different between consols that they may just not be bothered to port it for the PC well and utalize the available graphic functions fully due to the PC generally being the worst selling version and also a lot of core rewrites needed to impliment a feature properly.

Finally there is the atitude "As it is PS3 and we got X GB free space on the disc, lets bung all the high res cutscenes and textures and content as it costs us nothing." Whereas any PC or even 360 release currently has to be dual-layer DVD or internet (which is changing this) so there is a limit to the size of a game before it costing more to produce (2 DVDs cost twice as much as one), the PS3's blu-ray is hard to completly fill due to its whooping 50 GB odd size (dual layer) so for the PS3 version of the game makers may throw in extra textures or special optimizations (like lookup tables for certain opperations) so as to more fully take advantage of this.

This is most well known with the game FFXIII, where the PS3 version of the game only has 8-9 GB for gameplay on the disc while 30-40 GB of pre rendered CGI film content. The port for the 360 is having problem fitting this into 4 discs due to the size restrictions so they are having to cut down quality of a lot of the CGI films. The game would easilly fit onto only 2 DVDs without them if not one (compression) if not for the CGI filler content. No PC version of this game will be made and logically the PC version would probably suffer simlar problems to the 360 as nearly no one has a blu-ray drive yet.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

There's no point in continuing this discussion. Okay, I'll admit the PS3 isn't as good as it sounds like, but it's close. And nothing is going to make me believe anything else than that the PS3 is more awesome than the xbox 360, but my computer easily surpasses them all.
I can admit though that if I didn't have a computer the xbox 360 might have been awesome, but only if I didn't have a computer, and since I do I will never get it unless someone makes something really awesome for it which I can't get on my computer.

 

[Pyritie]

We only use 4% of our brain.

*of our brain's total mass

A lot of it is water and structural support

 

[BlargHonk]

Reborn, who cares if you think the PS3 is better hardwarewise, Xbox has better games, and everyone knows it.

It is like PS2 vs Xbox, the Xbox had awesums performance, but the PS2 had games, guess which won?

*of our brain's total mass

A lot of it is water and structural support

And cleaning cells/enzymes

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Reborn, who cares if you think the PS3 is better hardwarewise, Xbox has better games, and everyone knows it.

It is like PS2 vs Xbox, the Xbox had awesums performance, but the PS2 had games, guess which won?




And cleaning cells/enzymes

Wai- wha-? The best games are cross-platform this generation 'round. I mean, I preferred X-Box over PS2 simply because of the controller, and if it hadn't been for the Final Fantasy series I probably wouldn't have cared about getting a PS2. This time it's primarily because of the Blu-ray drive. Last generation I had both consoles because there were some benefits to both, this generation there's hardly any exclusive X-Box games that appeal to me, leaving the only benefit to be price, as the X-Box is one third of the PS3 on cost. Huge advantage for Microsoft that Final Fantasy XIII is coming for the X-Box as well though.

 

[BlargHonk]

Fun Fact: Most Crossplatform games run at higher resolution and FPS on the Xbox because the Xbox is easier to code for.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Weeee fun facts

Fun Fact: The computer is so awesome it can start to burn even with intense cooling.
Fun Fact: A computer made in 2006 beats both the xbox and the PS3. (it costs more than the xbox and the ps3 together though)
Fun Fact: My cat likes watching me play computer games, but she doesn't understand PS3 games.
Fun Fact: I'm out of fun facts :O