Sony's afraid.

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

I really think that Xbox's biggest advantage is the Live online play. Not only can you play games through it but I'm sure MS will realize the potential to deliver movies and other forms of entertainment directly to its subscribers. For instance, you could download the old versions of Halo or whatever for a small fee. I think that Sony is really going to need a unified online system in place to effectively compete.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

Except that Sony can't possibly have silicon this early before launch (or they would be launching much sooner) so they had to be pre-rendered. IMHO the "real-time" demos for Fight Night and Unreal 3 were likely based on G70s. Whether the final games look like the pre-rendered demos or not is still unknown, there's nothing to say that they won't.

 

[Zero Plasma]

Originally posted by: jelkukipik
The xbox360 is indeed a xbox 1.5.

They really show nothing new at e3 that the xbox, if it was just a bit more powerful, cannot do.

Vintage Girlzzzz rooockkk :disgust:

And what can the PS3 do that the PS2 couldn't if it were more powerful?
Have you seen their online features for the Xbox 360 Live? Their awesome.
What does the PS3 do thats unique?(Not a fanboy question, I want to know for future purchase.)

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

Weren't most PS3 demos confirmed CGI pre-rendered?

Yes, and the Xbox 360 demos were @ 1/3rd of it's true power.

That's just marketing hype... "Our demos were only running at .0000001% of the true processing power of the xbox 36000000. Therefore, to actually give you an idea of the power of the new system just imagine reality.... but better." Seriously guys, let's just wait until we see actual games on the actual system before we start talking about who has better graphics or whatever else.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Fanboys are teh funny. I'll buy them if their good.

I'm certainly not a fanboy. I only own two consoles, a Dreamcast and a Gamecube.

 

[Zero Plasma]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

Weren't most PS3 demos confirmed CGI pre-rendered?

Yes, and the Xbox 360 demos were @ 1/3rd of it's true power.

That's just marketing hype... "Our demos were only running at .0000001% of the true processing power of the xbox 36000000. Therefore, to actually give you an idea of the power of the new system just imagine reality.... but better." Seriously guys, let's just wait until we see actual games on the actual system before we start talking about who has better graphics or whatever else.

Yeah, right now I just care about features.

 

[purbeast0]

Here, you all be the judge of whats going to be "better".

it gives a technical look at both systems, although it is from an MS guy doing the article. but it does give technical information and specs, not just opinions.

 

[Zero Plasma]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Fanboys are teh funny. I'll buy them if their good.

I'm certainly not a fanboy. I only own two consoles, a Dreamcast and a Gamecube.

I will definatily be getting Nintendo's next system.

 

[purbeast0]

anyone who hasn't even played xbox live should not even comment about the "feature" side of xbox.

xbox live is what has saved video gaming for me, as well as many of my friends. i picked up xbox live last september, my only gripe is that i did not get it earlier. you know hwat else? i haven't played my PS2 since ... last september. i have no urge to play any games on my ps2 because xbox live is just so fun. i have played ps2 many times since then at my friends house, however i have no urge to play any ps2 games, with God of War being the acception, as i played that for hours at my friends house and it truly kicks ass.

 

[loup garou]

I can't believe people argue over this crap, the consoles aren't even out yet...hell, we don't even entirely know their final specs/designs. This sh1t is ridiculous.

 

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Here, you all be the judge of whats going to be "better".

it gives a technical look at both systems, although it is from an MS guy doing the article. but it does give technical information and specs, not just opinions.

Only proves MS is the one who is scared. That document has more fallacies than your average fanboy forum post. I can't wait for Anand's dissection of it to get the real scoop.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

Neither the Xbox360 demos nor the PS3 demos were running on the actual hardware, since it isn't ready yet. The Xbox360 demos were running on G5 Macs, while the PS3 demos were pre-rendered.

For those not too brainwashed to remember, Sony also referred to the PS2 as a "supercomputer", and they showed amazing "game scenes" before its launch, too. It turned out that those amazing "game scenes" were the pre-rendered scenes in the game. Lame hype.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Here, you all be the judge of whats going to be "better".

it gives a technical look at both systems, although it is from an MS guy doing the article. but it does give technical information and specs, not just opinions.

Only proves MS is the one who is scared. That document has more fallacies than your average fanboy forum post. I can't wait for Anand's dissection of it to get the real scoop.

? please point out some.

 

[purbeast0]

<--- guaranteed to buy XBox360 on release date after finding this out (KI3).

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

Neither the Xbox360 demos nor the PS3 demos were running on the actual hardware, since it isn't ready yet. The Xbox360 demos were running on G5 Macs, while the PS3 demos were pre-rendered.

For those not too brainwashed to remember, Sony also referred to the PS2 as a "supercomputer", and they showed amazing "game scenes" before its launch, too. It turned out that those amazing "game scenes" were the pre-rendered scenes in the game. Lame hype.

did you see the old man's face that they showed being animated that was supposed to be real time rendering? and how detailed and realistic it was? it looked like something that was even better than the animation/graphics in Shrek 2 or Finding Nemo or Final Fantasy the movie or Killzone 2 trailer.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

Xbox360 could be the victor if they accepted a bigger loss on the consoles and launched at $150. Better yet, they could give it to you free with a subscription to Xbox Live Gold.

Fanboys are teh funny. I'll buy them if their good.

I'm certainly not a fanboy. I only own two consoles, a Dreamcast and a Gamecube.

I will definatily be getting Nintendo's next system.

Same here. The question for me is what other console I will be getting. I am a huge nintendo fan for their game quality and system prices, if they can pull that off again I will have my revolution along side my HTPC at home. After about a year I will think about picking up a PS3 or Xbox 360, just depends on what looks the best

-spike

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Bah....I'd rather get laid than play video games. So that pwns Sony and Microsoft in my book.

14 years of marriage and 3 children later, I'd rather do both. Getting laid only lasts for so long. I don't have to go out and find it so it takes much less of my time.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Here, you all be the judge of whats going to be "better".

it gives a technical look at both systems, although it is from an MS guy doing the article. but it does give technical information and specs, not just opinions.

Only proves MS is the one who is scared. That document has more fallacies than your average fanboy forum post. I can't wait for Anand's dissection of it to get the real scoop.

I posted this in the other thread so I won't bother going over it again, but the math looks right for almost everything except the bandwidth where they blatantly skewed it by using the eDRAM figure. IMHO, the systems will have different strengths; on physics-heavy games the PS3 should be more powerful whereas the X360 will do better on games that require more AI work.

Graphic-wise, it looks like they will be pretty comparable. The specs are close enough that there won't be a huge difference between the two despite the hype Sony is trying to build.

As 91TTZ said, Sony spouted off the exact same "supercomputer in a box" claims when PS2 and look at how well that turned out.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
I posted this in the other thread so I won't bother going over it again, but the math looks right for almost everything except the bandwidth where they blatantly skewed it by using the eDRAM figure.

ATI seems to like the eDRAM. They've said it allows them to do 4x anti-aliasing for free.

 

[ivol07]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet

Originally posted by: Zero Plasma

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

Weren't most PS3 demos confirmed CGI pre-rendered?

Yes, and the Xbox 360 demos were @ 1/3rd of it's true power.

That's just marketing hype... "Our demos were only running at .0000001% of the true processing power of the xbox 36000000. Therefore, to actually give you an idea of the power of the new system just imagine reality.... but better." Seriously guys, let's just wait until we see actual games on the actual system before we start talking about who has better graphics or whatever else.

From AnanandTech, Not MS

A pair of Apple Powermac G5 systems were actually running the Xbox 360 demos, not the 360 console. The consoles in the kiosks weren't actually running, they were just for show - now you know why all the controllers were wired.

Because the G5 systems can only use a GeForce 6800 Ultra or an ATI Radeon X800 XT, developers had to significantly reduce the image quality of their demos - which explains their lack luster appearance. Anti-aliasing wasn't enabled on any of the demos, while the final Xbox 360 console will have 4X AA enabled on all titles.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch
The seller for me was that previews for the xbox360 games were a meh, while the ps3 demos actually made me :shocked:

That game from Insomniac was "WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on PS3......CoD meets HL2.

 

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
I posted this in the other thread so I won't bother going over it again, but the math looks right for almost everything except the bandwidth where they blatantly skewed it by using the eDRAM figure. IMHO, the systems will have different strengths; on physics-heavy games the PS3 should be more powerful whereas the X360 will do better on games that require more AI work.

Graphic-wise, it looks like they will be pretty comparable. The specs are close enough that there won't be a huge difference between the two despite the hype Sony is trying to build.

As 91TTZ said, Sony spouted off the exact same "supercomputer in a box" claims when PS2 and look at how well that turned out.

They make a lot of assumptions on the RSX comparison, being nobody knows the details of the part outside of Sony and Nvidia. They (mistakenly on purpose) compare it to a 6800 (or better two 6800s) when in fact all signs point to it being a totally different beast, probably more like the G70 but specialized to work with the Cell.

They tout the xCPUs general purpose advantages while ignoring the importance of floating point performance, especially as physics and procedural synthesis become more important players next generation.

It was overall FUD and marketing. Hopefully Anand's piece will be more rounded and show the advantages and disadvantages of both architectures.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Josh
Playstation will always win. I don't care if xbox has better specs, playstation still wins. Then again I'm a playstation fan and always will be one

playstations are for kiddies....
stand aside junior you cant handle the capabilities of an Xbox..

 

[91TTZ]

Seeing the two companies trying to compare benchmarks is comical at best, since both sides will intentionally avoid comparing one of their weakpoints against the other's strongpoints. It's so easy to show intentionally misleading results and bring up worthless points to make your system seem better. In the end, the average person has no idea what's going on while the engineers at the companies keep finding new ways to mislead you.

If someone was paid to show how a 1972 Volkwagon Beetle outperforms a 2005 Ferrari Enzo, it wouldn't be hard to do. For instance you could try to show that the Volkswagon has better brakes by showing how it's able to stop from top speed in a much shorter distance than the Ferrari (of course you'll leave out the fact that the Beetle's top speed is around 65 mph compared to 200 mph for the Ferrari). Then you can throw in some useless information such as how the Beetle gets better fuel economy, which means squat to someone looking at a Enzo. Then you can show how the Beetle can reach top speed quicker than the Ferrari (again, leaving out that the Beetle will only go 65 while the Ferrari will keep accelerating).

With these systems, MS is showing how their general purpose CPU is much faster, while Sony likes to show how much floating point performance they have. One likes to show how much video memory their GPU has, while the other likes to show how much bandwidth the system has. Of course these aren't really comparable since you have to program the games for these systems differently.

 

[ivol07]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Seeing the two companies trying to compare benchmarks is comical at best, since both sides will intentionally avoid comparing one of their weakpoints against the other's strongpoints. It's so easy to show intentionally misleading results and bring up worthless points to make your system seem better. In the end, the average person has no idea what's going on while the engineers at the companies keep finding new ways to mislead you.

If someone was paid to show how a 1972 Volkwagon Beetle outperforms a 2005 Ferrari Enzo, it wouldn't be hard to do. For instance you could try to show that the Volkswagon has better brakes by showing how it's able to stop from top speed in a much shorter distance than the Ferrari (of course you'll leave out the fact that the Beetle's top speed is around 65 mph compared to 200 mph for the Ferrari). Then you can throw in some useless information such as how the Beetle gets better fuel economy, which means squat to someone looking at a Enzo. Then you can show how the Beetle can reach top speed quicker than the Ferrari (again, leaving out that the Beetle will only go 65 while the Ferrari will keep accelerating).

Where can I get this 72 Beetle!? I need one now! Although it does sound to good to be true. I think I'll wait until I see both side by side....