PS3 Too Powerful?

[NiceCold]

it was confirm that ps4 will not exist just yet. http://www.gamespot.com/events/ces2012/story.html?sid=6348428&tag=updates;editor;all;title;4

just like they said before the ps3 will last up to 10 years or more. this prove that ps3 is too powerful that current time cant keep up. developers did not take ps3 power to full potential. most games like Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 is only taking 7% of ps3 power....... while Uncharted 3, Final Fantasy 13, Gran Turismo 5 and Soul Calibur 4 is only taking 40% of ps3 power. there is still 60% of ps3 power that hasnt been use to full extend.

xbox 360 is dated and has low power regarding power capacity therefore it needs a new successor and the new successor probly be lower than ps3 full power. so you will see a new ps3 game that look way better than a xbox 720 game.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Nintendo's NES is more powerful than the PS3. Thats all I have to say.

 

[Veliko]

What on earth...?

 

[Sulaco]

it was confirm that ps4 will not exist just yet. http://www.gamespot.com/events/ces2012/story.html?sid=6348428&tag=updates;editor;all;title;4

just like they said before the ps3 will last up to 10 years or more. this prove that ps3 is too powerful that current time cant keep up. developers did not take ps3 power to full potential. most games like Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 is only taking 7% of ps3 power....... while Uncharted 3, Final Fantasy 13, Gran Turismo 5 and Soul Calibur 4 is only taking 40% of ps3 power. there is still 60% of ps3 power that hasnt been use to full extend.

xbox 360 is dated and has low power regarding power capacity therefore it needs a new successor and the new successor probly be lower than ps3 full power. so you will see a new ps3 game that look way better than a xbox 720 game.

How much did your mother drink when she was pregnant with you exactly?

 

[blurredvision]

just like they said before the ps3 will last up to 10 years or more.

Geez, I wish people would quit taking that out of context. Yes, they said the plan was a 10-year life-cycle. No, they did not say that only meant one console from Sony for 10 years at a time.

 

[Soundmanred]

Too bad the search for a users other posts is broken.
Then you guys would know better.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Too bad the search for a users other posts is broken.
Then you guys would know better.

Yeah I was wondering about that, it wasnt working.

 

[-Slacker-]

That's what you get when you incorporate top secret tech from space aliens into your console. The ps3 is sooooooooooo powerful

 

[purbeast0]

sony has been known to lie in the industry so i wouldn't trust anything they say at this point about the PS4.

coulda sworn i remember reading an article about EA developing for next gen consoles already.

 

[timswim78]

[Q]
has low power regarding power capacity
[/Q]

Awesome! I always wondered what was wrong with the XBOX 360. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Sephire]

loooool

 

[Sonikku]

it was confirm that ps4 will not exist just yet. http://www.gamespot.com/events/ces2012/story.html?sid=6348428&tag=updates;editor;all;title;4

just like they said before the ps3 will last up to 10 years or more. this prove that ps3 is too powerful that current time cant keep up. developers did not take ps3 power to full potential. most games like Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 is only taking 7% of ps3 power....... while Uncharted 3, Final Fantasy 13, Gran Turismo 5 and Soul Calibur 4 is only taking 40% of ps3 power. there is still 60% of ps3 power that hasnt been use to full extend.

xbox 360 is dated and has low power regarding power capacity therefore it needs a new successor and the new successor probly be lower than ps3 full power. so you will see a new ps3 game that look way better than a xbox 720 game.

The Playstation 3... It's TOO POWERFUL!
It's self aware! It'll kill us all! Oh god the Mayans predicted this WHY DIDN'T WE LISTEN.

Edit: TOP TOP men (that's two tops) moved the doomsday clock 1 minute closer to midnight a short while ago. http://news.yahoo.com/imminent-destruction-doomsday-clock-moved-1-minute-closer-185019175.html

 

[Anteaus]

Like any other machine, the PS3 is only as potent as the sum of its parts. On one hand, you have a machine with an incredible CPU that is capable of all sorts of great things. On the technical side, that CPU was married with a ridiculously small amount of ram (250MB) and has access to a GPU that was already outdated at release and itself only having access to 250MB in which to store textures that are meant to fill a 1920X1080 screen. Just because they aren't using that fancy CPU to its max potential doesn't mean there aren't other bottlenecks that any average PC gamer could pick out easily.

In my opinion, them saying that the PS3 is "too powerful to replace" is the same thing as saying "we don't have anything to replace it with yet but we need people to keep buying PS3s so let's keep pumping the PR machine until we have something to show."

 

[JTsyo]

Like any other machine, the PS3 is only as potent as the sum of its parts. On one hand, you have a machine with an incredible CPU that is capable of all sorts of great things. On the technical side, that CPU was married with a ridiculously small amount of ram (250MB) and has access to a GPU that was already outdated at release and itself only having access to 250MB in which to store textures that are meant to fill a 1920X1080 screen. Just because they aren't using that fancy CPU to its max potential doesn't mean there aren't other bottlenecks that any average PC gamer could pick out easily.

In my opinion, them saying that the PS3 is "too powerful to replace" is the same thing as saying "we don't have anything to replace it with yet but we need people to keep buying PS3s so let's keep pumping the PR machine until we have something to show."

was going to post something similar. The Cell processor might be good but RAM and GPU holds it back.

 

[JTsyo]

Yeah I was wondering about that, it wasnt working.

It's working.

 

[Soundmanred]

wow it look so advance. do i lcick 3d trace or global trace? maybe ill mess with it later.

 

[mmntech]

Like any other machine, the PS3 is only as potent as the sum of its parts. On one hand, you have a machine with an incredible CPU that is capable of all sorts of great things. On the technical side, that CPU was married with a ridiculously small amount of ram (250MB) and has access to a GPU that was already outdated at release and itself only having access to 250MB in which to store textures that are meant to fill a 1920X1080 screen. Just because they aren't using that fancy CPU to its max potential doesn't mean there aren't other bottlenecks that any average PC gamer could pick out easily.

The GPU wasn't necessarily outdated. The RSX is based on the Geforce 7800 GTX, which came out in March of that year. I suppose they could have used the 8800GT, released in October 2006. However, it may have been the case that the GTX was cheaper and available in suitable quantities.

As for performace, there's not that much separating the X1800 XL that the Xbox 360's GPU is based on, and the 7800 GTX the PS3 has. In fact in a PC environment, the nVidia GPU matches or beats out the ATI one in real world full HD performance.

That's in a PC environment. It's also worth noting that 256mb GDDR3 was standard at the time. Only high end cards had 512mb or more.

Both the PS3 and XBox 360 have the same amount of RAM: 512mb. So performance really boils down to how effectively the software used the 360's RAM. So say if the game only uses 128mb of RAM, the GPU has the rest for textures. With shared RAM though, you're entirely at the whim of what the software uses. One of the reasons why you see so few 360 games at 1080p.

The PS3 on the other hand uses separate memory, which is optimal. But, going with 256mb for system RAM is a huge bottleneck for such a powerful CPU. Another issue may be how the Cell handles the RAM, and it could be that the PS3 just doesn't use what RAM it has as efficiently.

They should have gone with a 512/256 configuration. So why didn't they? Cost for one. RAMBUS RAM has always been notoriously expensive. It was an odd design choice to begin with. The PS3 was already pushing $600 with early production costs estimated to be around $800. The PS3 is a system of compromises. In hindsight, adding Blu-ray wasn't a mistake. Sony scored big payoffs from that. Full PS2 hardware BC was though. Had they scrapped that and put it towards more RAM, I think they would have had a better console.

But with the PS3 and Xbox 360 being pretty much equal performance wise, why does the 360 seem to look better? Well, at the time there were two schools of thought. You could either go for raw frame rates and very high resolutions, in other words raw power. Or you could shoot for the highest image quality. nVidia went the raw power route, ATI focused on image quality. Even on PC, ATI cards from the mid 2000s didn't have tons of horsepower but always looked the best.

 

[alent1234]

a lot of games use the unreal engine so if that was optimized for x-box that would explain the quality difference. i was actually shocked when i saw that kinect adventures used unreal.

 

[zerocool84]

a lot of games use the unreal engine so if that was optimized for x-box that would explain the quality difference. i was actually shocked when i saw that kinect adventures used unreal.

It boils down to the Xbox being easier for the devs to work on.

 

[Ancalagon44]

It boils down to the Xbox being easier for the devs to work on.

This.

The two are similar enough in power that you can get good results on either. However, mmntech is mistaken, the GPU in the PS3 really is slower, and its slower enough to make a difference. That and the fact that the XBox is so much easier to develop for, is why games tend to look better on XBox than Ps3.

 

[lamedude]

Xenos has 48 (240 VLIW5 in ATI terms) unified shaders so its more like R600 than R520. While G7x and R5x0 were close during their time the 7900GTX loses to midrange unified shader cards on later games. RSX has half the bandwidth and ROPs so its even slower. Only if Sony had waited for a G92 based part and for the blue laser diode shortage to end it could have been so much better but they would've risked losing the HD war.

 

[jordanecmusic]

Xenos has 48 (240 VLIW5 in ATI terms) unified shaders so its more like R600 than R520. While G7x and R5x0 were close during their time the 7900GTX loses to midrange unified shader cards on later games. RSX has half the bandwidth and ROPs so its even slower. Only if Sony had waited for a G92 based part and for the blue laser diode shortage to end it could have been so much better but they would've risked losing the HD war.

hd was on pc many years before consoles got it. people buy more gaming consoles then pc sadly so time was not of the essence. Sony got people hooked with the ps2 and ps1 making them diehard sony fans. The original Xbox stole some of those fans making them into diehard sony fans. I myself went with pc.

I'd rather sleep on a $1000 luxury bed than a $200 cot.

 

[Veliko]

hd was on pc many years before consoles got it. people buy more gaming consoles then pc sadly so time was not of the essence. Sony got people hooked with the ps2 and ps1 making them diehard sony fans. The original Xbox stole some of those fans making them into diehard sony fans. I myself went with pc.

I'd rather sleep on a $1000 luxury bed than a $200 cot.

I'd rather think for myself than join a cult.

 

[jordanecmusic]

I'd rather think for myself than join a cult.

that statement works against you. you can only choose two pieces of hardware for hd console gaming. Ps3 or xbox 360

or

you can pick your own parts and build your own specialized for yourself freedom pc.

 

[Veliko]

that statement works against you. you can only choose two pieces of hardware for hd console gaming. Ps3 or xbox 360

or

you can pick your own parts and build your own specialized for yourself freedom pc.

Or you can have all three.

And the 'specialised' nature of building your own PC is exaggerated. The two most important parts of a gaming PC are the CPU and the graphics card. Which gives you the option of AMD and Intel for the CPU and then Nvidia and, erm, AMD again for the graphics card.

For the rest of the components the difference matters far less.