PS3 (the person) suggested I make this topic, so I did.
To start it off..
I see people claiming the PS3 has better games.
What PS3 games compare to this?
Gears of War
Crackdown
Saints Row
Mass Effect
Dead Rising
Too Human
Splinter Cell 4 (It's on PS2, but there is no PS3 version)
Halo 3
Fable 2
Forza 2
Alan Wake
BioShock
APB
Huxley
Viva Pinata
Kane & Lynch: Dead Men
..and many others.
there is a PS3 version of Splinter Cell Double Agent (SC4) http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/splintercell4/index.html
PS3 not only has better games but the PS3 itself has better specs for its console. not mention a next Gen video player built-in as well.
This is kind of boring because everyone has different tastes. My issue with the 360 is that for fps I would rather play on a pc. But Playstation has always had more/better games. Look at gamespot and look at the number of high rated ps2 games vs xbox or ps2 vs xbox and xbox 360.
I will probably get a ps3 when I can get the games for $20. I dont mind paying for hardware but $60 per game(ps3 or 360) isn't going to happen.
MGS4
Grand Turismo
Resistance Fall of Man
Army of Two
Devil May Cry
Tekken 6
Final Fantasy
Virtua Fighter
killzone 2
Ratchet and Clank
Plus the playstation still has a lot of big series that sequals havent been announced for yet.(like socom)
I'm willing to bet that the upcoming god of war 2 and zelda are going to be better than anything in the xbox 360s current catalog.
Games aren't all graphics anyway if its not fun who cares what it looks like.
im mainly getting the PS3 because of the awsome graphics. theres no other console out there will that much operating power....yet.
awesome graphics does not mean awesome games
awesome graphics does not mean awesome games
Very, very true. And besides, the PS3 is only slightly more powerful then the 360.
This is kind of boring because everyone has different tastes. My issue with the 360 is that for fps I would rather play on a pc. But Playstation has always had more/better games. Look at gamespot and look at the number of high rated ps2 games vs xbox or ps2 vs xbox and xbox 360.
I will probably get a ps3 when I can get the games for $20. I dont mind paying for hardware but $60 per game(ps3 or 360) isn't going to happen.
MGS4
Grand Turismo
Resistance Fall of Man
Army of Two
Devil May Cry
Tekken 6
Final Fantasy
Virtua Fighter
killzone 2
Ratchet and Clank
Plus the playstation still has a lot of big series that sequals havent been announced for yet.(like socom)
I'm willing to bet that the upcoming god of war 2 and zelda are going to be better than anything in the xbox 360s current catalog.
Games aren't all graphics anyway if its not fun who cares what it looks like.
I can agree with that everyone has different tastes. But you also said you prefer FPS on PC, but at the same time mention 3 FPS on PS3. What's the go? Out of my whole list I mention 3 games that are FPS. Xbox 360 doesn't just have FPS anymore.
there is a PS3 version of Splinter Cell Double Agent (SC4) http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/splintercell4/index.html
PS3 not only has better games but the PS3 itself has better specs for its console. not mention a next Gen video player built-in as well.
Well first of all, GameSpot only lists that because of a rumour. And second, the official SC4 website mentions no PS3 version.
And about the "next gen video player built-in", this picture best describes what I'm thinking...
http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/4853/blurayforcefeed2el.jpg
Anyway, I'm willing to bet some of you people don't even know half the games I'm talking about. You say "the Xbox 360 has no games" without actually knowing if it does or not. Have you seen Mass Effect? a RPG from the same people who made the successful KOTOR - Bioware. This RPG is going to be AWESOME. Saints Row? A next gen free roaming game that looks to compete against the GTA series. All I'm saying is, 360 has plenty of good games, but are overlooked for Sonys tired series (I.E, Final Fantasy, MGS4, etc.)
Saints Row? A next gen free roaming game that looks to compete against the GTA series. All I'm saying is, 360 has plenty of good games, but are overlooked for Sonys tired series (I.E, Final Fantasy, MGS4, etc.)
I don't pretend to know much of anything about XBOX 360, I just know the console has an award winning design that looks good and has decent specifications. However based on the ugly looking PS3 design I've recently seen its specs would make me choose it instead - but not solely on specs alone, because I know it will have a plethora of the games I like.
That Saints Row game you mentioned in my opinion would have to absolutely crush the GTA series for me to even consider it. I literally compare GTA San Andreas as the modern day godfather of RPG's against any other free roaming do whatever the hell you want game, and in my opinion it will be difficult to beat.
Although I'm a long time Final Fantasy fan since FF3 here in the U.S. I do find it very repetitious and it's always bothered me that I can't go literally everywhere I want such as in the GTA series, and the constant attacks and fights are what have more-or-less shifted me from a fantasy setting to the more realistic real-world-like environment of GTA.
Don't get me started on the MGS series; killer graphics, too linear, too much damned talking followed by more talking, and a very short time to complete which is why I won't buy another MGS game but instead rent them.
i never said anything that the xbox 360 doesnt have any games. without games why build a console system. lol
and i never said xbox 360 doesnt have any good games either. why else am i getting the 360 when Halo 3 and FABLE 2 comes out.
i think having good graphics means awsome gaming. it really comes down to ones opinion and perspective on a point of view.
when the blu-ray becomes more popular, its than will people realise how awsome it really is.
XGuNn3rX,
have you seen a video between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray? because i have. our neighbour has a HD-Blu-Ray player in their living room and they paid a little over AU$2,500 for it. i compared the two together and without much time. there was this immense difference between the two.
xbox is a good console, awsome gaming and you the rest but what im saying is, its crap compared to the PS3. i have played many many hours on the 360. and everyone i know thats got a 360 is also prepared to get the PS3 when its launched.
all microsoft fan boys only and probably will always say the PS3 is only slightly better than the 360. i dont blame you for denying the truth when you're a fanboy.
i hope you now know what im getting at. i dont hate the 360, and thats the truth. i would buy one now if i had enough money to have both consoles, but i dont. i would rather choose the better console out of the two. im not even going to bother with Wii. it has none of the games i want. and most of the games i want is on the PS3. im getting the PS3 because it best suits me and my needs.
i think having good graphics means awsome gaming. it really comes down to ones opinion and perspective on a point of view.
So I could make the worst game ever made, with some of the best graphics ever seen, and you would like it? :|
XGuNn3rX,have you seen a video between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray? because i have. our neighbour has a HD-Blu-Ray player in their living room and they paid a little over AU$2,500 for it. i compared the two together and without much time. there was this immense difference between the two.
I've read the reviews. Everyone is saying HD-DVD > Blu-Ray.
xbox is a good console, awsome gaming and you the rest but what im saying is, its crap compared to the PS3. i have played many many hours on the 360. and everyone i know thats got a 360 is also prepared to get the PS3 when its launched.
How is the PS3 better? Besides, the PS3 isn't even out yet, it could be a massive flop.
all microsoft fan boys only and probably will always say the PS3 is only slightly better than the 360. i dont blame you for denying the truth when you're a fanboy.
So now I'm in denial? :| The PS3 is only slightly better then the 360. The PS3 is already outdated, much before its release.
it depends what kind of game you make with awsome graphics. and i doubt you could.
how is the PS3 outdated? and as you said yourself. the PS3 isnt even out yet so how could everyone say HD-DVD > Blu-Ray? and you didnt answer my question earlier. "have you seen a video between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray?"
it depends what kind of game you make with awsome graphics. and i doubt you could.
how is the PS3 outdated? and as you said yourself. the PS3 isnt even out yet so how could everyone say HD-DVD > Blu-Ray? and you didnt answer my question earlier. "have you seen a video between a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray?"
No I haven't seen HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in action, but everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is saying that HD-DVD has better picture quality then Blu-Ray.
picture quality? it all depends on how the data is encoded(unless it's a raw source).
picture quality? it all depends on how the data is encoded(unless it's a raw source).
Yup! And what's seen in the early stages is only preliminary and "may" vastly improve. Too bad though that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray seem to be repeating the whole Beta vs. VHS thing all over again, but then again not too long ago so did DVD+ and DVD- formats.
The consortiums/companies seriously need to support a one-format which would not only allow for all hardware to be compatible, it would also be far less confusing for the consumer.
if you havent then you havent experienced how the quality is really like. you should experience it yourself rather listening what most people will say. in your opinion, how many people is everyone? i can tell you now that not everyone thinks the HD-DVD is better than the BD. try asking people that is not in the Microsoft fanboy groups and see what sort of an answer you will get. before you do that. i can tell you now that not everyone thinks the HD-DVD is better, why? because i dont think it is. there you go, not EVERYONE thinks its better.No I haven't seen HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in action, but everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is saying that HD-DVD has better picture quality then Blu-Ray.
if you havent then you havent experienced how the quality is really like. you should experience it yourself rather listening what most people will say. in your opinion, how many people is everyone? i can tell you now that not everyone thinks the HD-DVD is better than the BD. try asking people that is not in the Microsoft fanboy groups and see what sort of an answer you will get. before you do that. i can tell you now that not everyone thinks the HD-DVD is better, why? because i dont think it is. there you go, not EVERYONE thinks its better.
HD-DVD has got nothing to do with Microsoft or Microsoft fanboys. I'd rather believe the majority then your obviously biased opinion.
I thought you might like this. It was taken from another board.
He mentions "Cows" alot, the reason being.. on this board every fanboy has a name. Cows = Sony Fanboys.
So the question is, just how powerful is the Cell? Simple: NOT THAT POWERFUL. Lets explore:
The cell = 9 cores, 3.2 GHz
On top of this, the Cell is at this current phase, reliant on the RSX as a backup. In early cell testing, the RSX was used as both a GPU and a backup cell for data processing. Should the cell fill up or fail at any task, the RSX would take over that task and any others necessary until the CPU could stabilize. However, the RSX was in select cases overloading and then the ER protocols would force the data back to the CPU causing system failure and interruption with data streaming.
Also, the Cell only float 2 Teraflops where a sophisticated PC can run anywhere between 4 and 6. Your average supercomputer can hit over 100TB easily.
Furthermore, the Cell and RSX are restrained by minimal PS3 resources from the RAM. The mPS3 has 256MB of Main RAM, about enough for your average PC to run Microsoft office. Of course, the cell allows games to be played at higher speeds with less RAM because of its 9 cores for data processing, but eventually tehre will come a point where 256MB just wont be enough. Even now, games like Oblivion on the PC require 1GB of RAM to be run at max setting and the Xbox 360 with its only 512MB of RAM cant handle the max settings because of it. Its going to be a problem that will limmit the cell.
O yes, the arguement is back and better than ever. You could say, fresh cows revived it
I had some cows trying to convince me I was nuts, that the playstation 3 rivals "supercomputers" (he then proceeded to say orginal supercomputers which rival the processing and graphical power of most current day calculators...nice example cows) Anyways, I decided to check it out a bit more in depth. What I found was that the PS3 is not only an outdated piece of harware, but its farily low tech by "supercomputer" standards.
Below is a lost of the PS3 technical specifications. Keep in mind that much of it is give in take. It plays alot of stuff, but DVD, DVD R, DVD RW and DVD R+ are just fancy names for DVD.
PLAYSTATION 3 SPECIFICATIONS
CPU: Cell Processor PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
--1 VMX vector unit per core
--512KB L2 cache
--7 x SPE @3.2GHz
--7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
--7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
--*1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy
--Total floating point performance: 218 gigaflops
GPU RSX @ 550MHz
--1.8 TFLOPS floating point Performance
--Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
--Multi-way programmable parallel Floating point shader pipelines
--Sound Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-based processing)
MEMORY
256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz
System Bandwidth Main RAM-- 25.6GB/s
VRAM--22.4GB/s
RSX-- 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)
SYSTEM FLOATING POINT PERFORMANCE:
2 teraflops
STORAGE
--HDD Detachable 2.5" HDD slot x 1
--I/O--USB Front x 4, Rear x 2 (USB2.0)
--Memory Stickstandard/Duo, PRO x 1
--SD standard/mini x 1
--CompactFlash(Type I, II) x 1
COMMUNICATION
--Ethernet (10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-T) x 3 (input x 1 + output x 2)
--Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11 b/g
--Bluetooth--Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
--ControllerBluetooth (up to 7)
--USB 2.0 (wired)
--Wi-Fi (PSP)
--Network (over IP)
AV OUTPUT
Screen size 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
HDMI out x 2
AV multi out x 1
Digital out (optical) x 1
DISC MEDIA
CD
PlayStation CD-ROM
PlayStation2 CD-ROM
CD-DA
CD-DA (ROM),
CD-R,
CD-RW
SACD Hybrid (CD layer),
SACD HD
DualDisc (audio side)
DualDisc (DVD side)
PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM
PlayStation 3 DVD-ROM
DVD-ROM
DVD-R
DVD-RW
DVD+R,
DVD+RW
Blu-ray Disc
PlayStation 3 BD-ROM
BD-ROM
BD
Now I will give you the specs of your state of the art Supercomputer vs the PS3 (SC to the left, PS3 to the right)
Nvidia 7950................RSX (comprable to the Nvidia 7900 in terms of raw power) clocked like a G70
4-6 TF of RAM....................dual 256 MB PCI (256 Main)
Dual/Tri Core 4.0 GHz pentium D celeron with hyperthreading..........1 VMX vector unit per core, 3.2 GHz
250GB-1 TF of System Memory...............80 GB of compact flash storage
Dolby 12.1 surround sound card.................7.1 surround sound output
Floating Performace - 80-100+ teraflops ..........2 teraflops
In terms of performance, the supercomputer can load over 2000 times as fast as the PS3, with superior output for graphics, sound, system cache and so on.
in comparision to this dell http://www.dell.com/content/products/produ...on=specs#tabtop the dell is superior
when compared to this alienware state of the art ALX model gaming PC, the PC is on top by a long shot http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pa...DEFAULT#pdp-nav
heck, the PS3 is even beaten out by Apple Computer's iMAC:
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo with 2MB shared L2 cache
512MB (single SO-DIMM) 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Slot-load 8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon X1600 graphics with 128MB GDDR3 memory
So point is cows, the PS3 is comprable to a mid range PC, not a high end PC or a gaming PC that was built this year. PCs have advanced beyond PS3 with things like the PhysX Ageia physics card, the Nvidia 7950, Tri Core processing and so on. The PS3 falls into a range with the 400 dollar gateways in terms of sheer performance, which is sad considering atleast 50 bucks of teh gateway is going to pay for the monitor that is thrown in.
Basically, the only thing setting the PS3 above any PC or above the Xbox 360 is the Blu-Ray player. On the flipside, the initial reviews for Blu-Ray were negative, sighting its cost and size as a waste because its quality for the first titles was actually inferior to that of HD DVD, and it was comprable to regualr DVD9. Shame. http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5600201-1.html , http://reviews.cnet.com/Samsung_BD_P1000/4...7-31799185.html
So in a sense you are getting what you are paying for. A supercomputer would set you back 4-6 grand no sweat. The PS3 is costing 600 bucks, but its giving you a bit more than its costing you. Yes its true, from a technical standpoint the PS3 is cheaper than the sum of its parts (but so are most PCs, and so is the Xbox 360). That doesnt make it cheap, it means you arent paying premium so dont expect it.
to wrap up
>
Making a long story short, the cell is a breakthrough in modern computer science, but not a landmark. You need to understand, the cell was build specifically to run small applications and datastreaming that would not require it to overclock for any reason. It was built originally to run the new GE catscan machines and power Xray machines for medical useage. As far as raw power goes, the Cell is by no means the most pwoerful or the most advanced CPU that exists. It is build for small PCs and devices with less than 9 systems operating on them at low speeds.
keep in mind that nothing is certain or nailed in stone, and that above all, a PC isnt the same as a console. I give you the comparison because I dont ever want to hear the PS3 is a supercomputer arguement again, not because its fair. Also remember that the cell is restricted by the PS3, its maximum potential for speed and processing power as a CPU isnt fulfilled in the PS3 architecture. PS3 plays games and nothing else, so it economiizes to do so, but it isnt the best environment to examine the power of a new CPU or GPU.
H-DVD has got nothing to do with Microsoft or Microsoft fanboys. I'd rather believe the majority then your obviously biased opinion.
And that article's not at all biased . (on a side note the article would have a little more credence if you provided the source)
I really don't see why you get so irate about it. It is what it is, does it really matter whether its not as good as a 'supercomputer'? (which is a completely irrelevant comparison IMO)
That artice concluded by saying the PS3 won't be better then an alienware computer...
PS3= $600
AlienWare PC= at least $1,000 way more if you get the best of the best.
Game consoles have never been able to stand up to the top of the line pc and never will. The thing is most people don't have top of the line pcs so the PS3 will be the most powerfull thing they own. Plus it looks like they are going to include some form of linux on it so it will be able to surf the web, do word processing, ect. Would I ever do this on it? No, I'm not going to do homework on a top of the line console. I'm going to play games.
But to a kid that dosent have a computer in his room and gets a ps3 that will be a nice addititon.
Play whatever system you like for the games you like. Who cares what it can or cannot do. It's meant to do one thing primarily and that is to play games. If it doesn't have your favorite genre, then buy the one that does. Specs on a gaming console really mean absolutely nothing.
I personally think the PS3 looks fine. I may even buy one when and if Final Fantasy 13 comes out for PS3. I know Final Fantasy 12 will be out for the PS2 though.
I've followed the XBox and XBox360 and know that the XBox series always has issues. Even the 360 has issues, numerous, numerous issues. That to me would say which product is better. Who can come out with their hardware console and it does what it should without issues. One of the several issues for the XBox (or the 360, one of the two) had was overheating because of a poorly placed power supply. It didn't get the needed ventilation and frequently would shut down on players. I'd say that's a major hardware issue.
However, back when the PS2 came out there was an rumor where the DVD reader would go bad because people were playing DVD movies with it. Well, those geniuses who said that didn't realize that the games you play in the PS2 were also on DVD media, so it made no difference at all.
Overall, given the performance records; I'd say that the Playstation series is far superior to the XBox series.
Overall, given the performance records; I'd say that the Playstation series is far superior to the XBox series.
Agreed. But I would choose a good PC over a console anyday.
