***POLL*** PS3 or XBOX 360?

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jim1976
I have both so it's not a matter of preference for me.. If I had to choose one though I'd choose the xbox360 for the variety of games and the incremental better specs..

Better specs?

Better gpu/ more ram if you want and that is generally depicted in the incrementally better gfx in same games..
We don't have a complete idea about the "experimental" Cell and its dev capabilities yet, so that we can have a thorough look of the future..

I do know that the team that did uncharted said they are only really using 30% of what the system is capable of.

30%? They're either the worst developers in history or you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line.

Here's a hint: Uncharted looks and sounds excellent. So which option do you think is more likely?

Yea, 4th and 5th year games WILL look better than 1st year games, but 333% better? BS.

They did an interview, and stated that they really only used about 30% of the system potential on the whole.

More specifically they are using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPUs and there is a whole lot more that they can do. http://ps3.psu.com/Uncharted-D...Usage--a0001709-p0.php

"...Wells further went on to say that the Cells processor served as a handy tool for compiling all of Nathan?s (The game?s lead character) 3,500 animations. Ending it out, Wells had this to say, ?As far as the Cell processor and the SPU's are concerned we were only using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPU's at one time and so there is still quite a bit more we can do."

That's a clip from that interview.

Yes, and as I said above "you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line".

Don't you think that developer has an agenda that is darn similar to Sony's? I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Microsoft developers and I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Sony developers. When a Sony-exclusive developer says "There's no way this game could ever have fit on a DVD-9" or an MS-exclusive developer says that they're making a game Xbox 360 exclusive for most any reason other than the $$$, you can practically see the strings coming from their backs.

EDIT: And jeez, now that you've posted the quote you've been talking about, he's not even saying that they only used 30% of the PS3! He's saying they used 30% of the available SPEs, which is a huge difference from your original claim. If the PS3 was made up of the Cell and the Cell alone, then yea, you could say that Uncharted used 30% of the PS3. But there is a GPU (and other potential bottlenecks) involved.

Think about it in terms of two identically configured computers with different processors. Do you think that going from a single core to dual core processor results in a 100% increase in overall system performance? It doesn't.

The SPEs are the bread and butter of doing something special with the PS3. The Cell alone is junk and there is limited memory. It's not like a PC.

OK, well we could continue this ad infinitum, but if you choose to believe their rhetoric while I do not, we'll never get anywhere beyond this point. Even still, rest assured, when a PS3 game comes out that is quantifiably 3x "better" than Uncharted, I'll be the first one here to say that you knew what you were talking about. Somehow, I don't think it will come to that.

Something such as metal gear Solid 4 perhaps would be the first game to come close. Maybe Gran Turismo 5 at it's release time.

Better is a relative term. There are indeed going to be games that look better, or do one thing better than Uncharted did/does. That's not in question. If you think Uncharted is using 100% of the PS3's resources then I dunno what to say to you. It took quite a long time to max out the capabilities of the PS2 and the PS3 will be no different with the way it has been designed.

Reading comprehension ftw. I've already said that 4th and 5th year games will look better than 1st year (Uncharted) games. You can ignore it, but I wrote it right up there for everyone to see and now I've bolded it, even though it helps to highlight my lousy midnight math.

But Year 5 "AAA" PS2 games did not look 3x better than Year 1 "AAA" PS2 games. Year 5 "AAA" PS3 titles WILL NOT look 3x better than Uncharted.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jim1976
I have both so it's not a matter of preference for me.. If I had to choose one though I'd choose the xbox360 for the variety of games and the incremental better specs..

Better specs?

Better gpu/ more ram if you want and that is generally depicted in the incrementally better gfx in same games..
We don't have a complete idea about the "experimental" Cell and its dev capabilities yet, so that we can have a thorough look of the future..

I do know that the team that did uncharted said they are only really using 30% of what the system is capable of.

30%? They're either the worst developers in history or you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line.

Here's a hint: Uncharted looks and sounds excellent. So which option do you think is more likely?

Yea, 4th and 5th year games WILL look better than 1st year games, but 333% better? BS.

They did an interview, and stated that they really only used about 30% of the system potential on the whole.

More specifically they are using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPUs and there is a whole lot more that they can do. http://ps3.psu.com/Uncharted-D...Usage--a0001709-p0.php

"...Wells further went on to say that the Cells processor served as a handy tool for compiling all of Nathan?s (The game?s lead character) 3,500 animations. Ending it out, Wells had this to say, ?As far as the Cell processor and the SPU's are concerned we were only using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPU's at one time and so there is still quite a bit more we can do."

That's a clip from that interview.

Yes, and as I said above "you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line".

Don't you think that developer has an agenda that is darn similar to Sony's? I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Microsoft developers and I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Sony developers. When a Sony-exclusive developer says "There's no way this game could ever have fit on a DVD-9" or an MS-exclusive developer says that they're making a game Xbox 360 exclusive for most any reason other than the $$$, you can practically see the strings coming from their backs.

EDIT: And jeez, now that you've posted the quote you've been talking about, he's not even saying that they only used 30% of the PS3! He's saying they used 30% of the available SPEs, which is a huge difference from your original claim. If the PS3 was made up of the Cell and the Cell alone, then yea, you could say that Uncharted used 30% of the PS3. But there is a GPU (and other potential bottlenecks) involved.

Think about it in terms of two identically configured computers with different processors. Do you think that going from a single core to dual core processor results in a 100% increase in overall system performance? It doesn't.

The SPEs are the bread and butter of doing something special with the PS3. The Cell alone is junk and there is limited memory. It's not like a PC.

OK, well we could continue this ad infinitum, but if you choose to believe their rhetoric while I do not, we'll never get anywhere beyond this point. Even still, rest assured, when a PS3 game comes out that is quantifiably 3x "better" than Uncharted, I'll be the first one here to say that you knew what you were talking about. Somehow, I don't think it will come to that.

Something such as metal gear Solid 4 perhaps would be the first game to come close. Maybe Gran Turismo 5 at it's release time.

Better is a relative term. There are indeed going to be games that look better, or do one thing better than Uncharted did/does. That's not in question. If you think Uncharted is using 100% of the PS3's resources then I dunno what to say to you. It took quite a long time to max out the capabilities of the PS2 and the PS3 will be no different with the way it has been designed.

Reading comprehension ftw. I've already said that 4th and 5th year games will look better than 1st year (Uncharted) games. You can ignore it, but I wrote it right up there for everyone to see and now I've bolded it, even though it helps to highlight my lousy midnight math.

But Year 5 "AAA" PS2 games did not look 3x better than Year 1 "AAA" PS2 games. Year 5 "AAA" PS3 titles WILL NOT look 3x better than Uncharted.

I'd say that the best games released at the peak of the PS2's existance did look 3x better than games released the first year. MGS2 vs Zone of the Enders? Gran Turismo 4 vs Ridge Racer?

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jim1976
I have both so it's not a matter of preference for me.. If I had to choose one though I'd choose the xbox360 for the variety of games and the incremental better specs..

Better specs?

Better gpu/ more ram if you want and that is generally depicted in the incrementally better gfx in same games..
We don't have a complete idea about the "experimental" Cell and its dev capabilities yet, so that we can have a thorough look of the future..

I do know that the team that did uncharted said they are only really using 30% of what the system is capable of.

30%? They're either the worst developers in history or you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line.

Here's a hint: Uncharted looks and sounds excellent. So which option do you think is more likely?

Yea, 4th and 5th year games WILL look better than 1st year games, but 333% better? BS.

They did an interview, and stated that they really only used about 30% of the system potential on the whole.

More specifically they are using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPUs and there is a whole lot more that they can do. http://ps3.psu.com/Uncharted-D...Usage--a0001709-p0.php

"...Wells further went on to say that the Cells processor served as a handy tool for compiling all of Nathan?s (The game?s lead character) 3,500 animations. Ending it out, Wells had this to say, ?As far as the Cell processor and the SPU's are concerned we were only using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPU's at one time and so there is still quite a bit more we can do."

That's a clip from that interview.

Yes, and as I said above "you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line".

Don't you think that developer has an agenda that is darn similar to Sony's? I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Microsoft developers and I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Sony developers. When a Sony-exclusive developer says "There's no way this game could ever have fit on a DVD-9" or an MS-exclusive developer says that they're making a game Xbox 360 exclusive for most any reason other than the $$$, you can practically see the strings coming from their backs.

EDIT: And jeez, now that you've posted the quote you've been talking about, he's not even saying that they only used 30% of the PS3! He's saying they used 30% of the available SPEs, which is a huge difference from your original claim. If the PS3 was made up of the Cell and the Cell alone, then yea, you could say that Uncharted used 30% of the PS3. But there is a GPU (and other potential bottlenecks) involved.

Think about it in terms of two identically configured computers with different processors. Do you think that going from a single core to dual core processor results in a 100% increase in overall system performance? It doesn't.

The SPEs are the bread and butter of doing something special with the PS3. The Cell alone is junk and there is limited memory. It's not like a PC.

OK, well we could continue this ad infinitum, but if you choose to believe their rhetoric while I do not, we'll never get anywhere beyond this point. Even still, rest assured, when a PS3 game comes out that is quantifiably 3x "better" than Uncharted, I'll be the first one here to say that you knew what you were talking about. Somehow, I don't think it will come to that.

Something such as metal gear Solid 4 perhaps would be the first game to come close. Maybe Gran Turismo 5 at it's release time.

Better is a relative term. There are indeed going to be games that look better, or do one thing better than Uncharted did/does. That's not in question. If you think Uncharted is using 100% of the PS3's resources then I dunno what to say to you. It took quite a long time to max out the capabilities of the PS2 and the PS3 will be no different with the way it has been designed.

Reading comprehension ftw. I've already said that 4th and 5th year games will look better than 1st year (Uncharted) games. You can ignore it, but I wrote it right up there for everyone to see and now I've bolded it, even though it helps to highlight my lousy midnight math.

But Year 5 "AAA" PS2 games did not look 3x better than Year 1 "AAA" PS2 games. Year 5 "AAA" PS3 titles WILL NOT look 3x better than Uncharted.

I'd say that the best games released at the peak of the PS2's existance did look 3x better than games released the first year. MGS2 vs Zone of the Enders? Gran Turismo 4 vs Ridge Racer?

Well, you are the first person I've ever heard qualify Zone of the Enders and Ridge Racer 5 as a "AAA" like I specified. But I guess that's just more thing we'll have to disagree on.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: jim1976
I have both so it's not a matter of preference for me.. If I had to choose one though I'd choose the xbox360 for the variety of games and the incremental better specs..

Better specs?

Better gpu/ more ram if you want and that is generally depicted in the incrementally better gfx in same games..
We don't have a complete idea about the "experimental" Cell and its dev capabilities yet, so that we can have a thorough look of the future..

I do know that the team that did uncharted said they are only really using 30% of what the system is capable of.

30%? They're either the worst developers in history or you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line.

Here's a hint: Uncharted looks and sounds excellent. So which option do you think is more likely?

Yea, 4th and 5th year games WILL look better than 1st year games, but 333% better? BS.

They did an interview, and stated that they really only used about 30% of the system potential on the whole.

More specifically they are using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPUs and there is a whole lot more that they can do. http://ps3.psu.com/Uncharted-D...Usage--a0001709-p0.php

"...Wells further went on to say that the Cells processor served as a handy tool for compiling all of Nathan?s (The game?s lead character) 3,500 animations. Ending it out, Wells had this to say, ?As far as the Cell processor and the SPU's are concerned we were only using about 1/3 to 1/2 of the SPU's at one time and so there is still quite a bit more we can do."

That's a clip from that interview.

Yes, and as I said above "you're readily subscribing to a line from a Sony-owned developer that has been taken directly from Sony's company line".

Don't you think that developer has an agenda that is darn similar to Sony's? I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Microsoft developers and I don't believe the PR BS that comes from in-house Sony developers. When a Sony-exclusive developer says "There's no way this game could ever have fit on a DVD-9" or an MS-exclusive developer says that they're making a game Xbox 360 exclusive for most any reason other than the $$$, you can practically see the strings coming from their backs.

EDIT: And jeez, now that you've posted the quote you've been talking about, he's not even saying that they only used 30% of the PS3! He's saying they used 30% of the available SPEs, which is a huge difference from your original claim. If the PS3 was made up of the Cell and the Cell alone, then yea, you could say that Uncharted used 30% of the PS3. But there is a GPU (and other potential bottlenecks) involved.

Think about it in terms of two identically configured computers with different processors. Do you think that going from a single core to dual core processor results in a 100% increase in overall system performance? It doesn't.

The SPEs are the bread and butter of doing something special with the PS3. The Cell alone is junk and there is limited memory. It's not like a PC.

OK, well we could continue this ad infinitum, but if you choose to believe their rhetoric while I do not, we'll never get anywhere beyond this point. Even still, rest assured, when a PS3 game comes out that is quantifiably 3x "better" than Uncharted, I'll be the first one here to say that you knew what you were talking about. Somehow, I don't think it will come to that.

Something such as metal gear Solid 4 perhaps would be the first game to come close. Maybe Gran Turismo 5 at it's release time.

Better is a relative term. There are indeed going to be games that look better, or do one thing better than Uncharted did/does. That's not in question. If you think Uncharted is using 100% of the PS3's resources then I dunno what to say to you. It took quite a long time to max out the capabilities of the PS2 and the PS3 will be no different with the way it has been designed.

Reading comprehension ftw. I've already said that 4th and 5th year games will look better than 1st year (Uncharted) games. You can ignore it, but I wrote it right up there for everyone to see and now I've bolded it, even though it helps to highlight my lousy midnight math.

But Year 5 "AAA" PS2 games did not look 3x better than Year 1 "AAA" PS2 games. Year 5 "AAA" PS3 titles WILL NOT look 3x better than Uncharted.

I'd say that the best games released at the peak of the PS2's existance did look 3x better than games released the first year. MGS2 vs Zone of the Enders? Gran Turismo 4 vs Ridge Racer?

Well, you are the first person I've ever heard of to qualify Zone of the Enders and Ridge Racer 5 as a "AAA" like I specified. But I guess that's just more thing we'll have to disagree on.

The first year of PS2 existance had very very few titles. Of the few I can remember those were 2 of the better releases. Zone of the Enders was a spectacular game BTW. Ridge Racer looked ok for the time, but meh...I hate racing games anyway


and wow...too many quotes lol

 

[Matt2]

I like my PS3, but if you're going to be using this thing for games, go with the Xbox360.

The game selection for the 360 is sooo much better than the PS3. I'm having a difficult time forcing myself to buy a new PS3 game.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
and wow...too many quotes lol

Ya think? :roll:

 

[livingsacrifice]

I own both and they both have the plus and minuses. I like the PS3 for the fact it displays a true 1080p picture not a stretched image, however the online service sucks I like xbox live much much better. Games either one is fine, I'm used to the 360 controller now, I like their larger selection of games out for it. PS3 is good because they have the bluray player and I actually own the HD-DVD player for the 360 and I still prefer the ps3 for movies. I guess right now my 360 is mostly my gaming machine but the ps3 is my movie player. Might change in the future if ps3 gets more releases but for right now this is how it will stay. I am pretty much undecided on which is better.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: livingsacrifice
I like the PS3 for the fact it displays a true 1080p picture not a stretched image

Exactly how do you have your 360 set up? My 360 Elite displays 1080p over HDMI just fine.

Even the original, OMGITSONFIRE Xbox 360 version now the ability to display 1080p over component or VGA if your TV will allow it. At the very least you can send it a 720p or 1080i signal, which are both widescreen and should never result in a "stretched" image, and should actually result in your TV upscaling it to 1080p.