Which is faster? Xbox 360 or PS3?

-Considering blu-ray and ps3 have alittle over half a year before they get released, i'm surprised people are complaining blu-ray isnt ready yet?

-The ps2 was quite difficult to code for, according to pretty much every developer around the time of the ps2 launch and it is the most popular platform out right now.

-I dont know what forums you hang around, but the 300 overheating ps3's sounds like a big fat rumor to me. I just looked across a few game news sites , including a few ps3 fansites and gamefaqs ps3 hardware and x360 hardware boards and have found nothing regarding this. Maybe your talking about the x360's that are overheating in walmart kiosks? and etching huge ring circles into the games?

 

Toshibas HDDVD format is about to launch. It's the sole rival to Sony's Blu-Ray format. You know Sony were responsible for Betamax right? Superior medium for movies, dies a death to technically inferior rival?

From what I've read, the PS3 will be a different kettle of fish altogether in terms of how easy it will be for developers to grapple with. When the likes of Tomonobu Itagaki mention this in interviews, I tend to listen.

Overheating PS3? Sure maybe it is a rumour, but when Joystiq post it as news, then maybe there is something to it: http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000340065758/

 

Yea, as i thought, just a rumor, and coming from a gamestop employee no less. I think if sony had released 300 ps3's to developers and each and everyone one of them melted down, thus causing the sony to fire each and every one of the development team, it would be pretty big news dont you think? I think everysite from slashdot to teamxbox would be plastering this news across there sites claiming the ps3 has already failed the console war or something like that.

 

As a recent convert back into the world of console gaming (I gave up playing consoles after FF7 was release. Nothing will beat perfection so why bother looking was my motto ), I was brought back just over a year ago while playing a friend's Xbox on XboxLive. Totally amazed by it's quality and integrated system, it's become my sole means of gaming for the last year (aside from the odd game of FreeCell).

Anyway, in the matter of the whole next-gen system wars, even as an Xbox fan, it's looking likely (with the information available today) that the PS3 will probably be the slightly more 'powerful' console (as subjective as that is). Even a few MS employees have hinted that the PS3 spec in theory has the advantage. However a certain renowned game developer (cannot remember his name for the life of me) made a very fitting statement which nicely sums the matter up, it went along the lines that he'd rather produce games for a console which was 20% easier to develop for as opposed to a console that was 20% faster. And as we know, MS has been bending over backwards to help developers get to grips with the Xbox360 (even to go so far as to supply free programmers to ensure future triple-A Xbox titles are backwards compatible on the 360). This isn't to say that Sony wont be as helpful, but they do have a reputation of supplying the hardware, the manual and wishing you the best of luck.

It also appears that with this round of consoles it will take a lot longer for developers to reach their potential as multi-threaded/multi-cored gaming has defiantly complicated matters (I believe that all the 360 launch titles will use 1-2 threads of the available 6). What all this means? I doubt we'll see a noticeable difference in performance between the two consoles for quite a while.

Me? I'm hitting my local Tesco first thing on the morning of 2nd December. The 360 will be the first console I've ever bought at launch. Why? Because watching a DVD while voice chatting a friend who's just moved to Germany is awesome. Streaming MP3's off of my server while playing *any* game is pure genius. Playing SmashTV with a few of my old college mates is class.

The way I feel "next-gen gaming" isn't about which machine can produce the most on-screen triangles, but which brings better ideas to the table, and just a few of which I mentioned.

 

Rumor has it that PS3 is being delayed, possibly to '07... so, I think the xbox 360 is faster

 

After reading this entire thread, I realized the PS3 will probably be faster but it will not come out for some time now. But the main reason on buying the two is games overall, and sure as hell i'm not buying the system where Final Fantasy was one of their biggest hits.

If I wanted a turn based RPG, I would play a god damn macromedia flash game on my computer.

 

i really couldnt care less.....the ps3 is getting lamer by the day..as sony takes off feature by feature without anybody noticing it...typical sony tacktics...and the xbox360 seems to be good but im gonna wait till their atlest on the second revision of the console comes out..

the only one thats not caught by the uber powah!!! hype is the revoloution which i like....nice and simple...no bulshit hype in their product.

 

Ok, i've just finally finished reading the thread too.

To honest from the developers view neither is "faster" than the other because their architectures are both different. You can only compare like for like. They have different numbers of cores, threads. So its not just the core speeds but the bus speeds. Any pc programmers out there, just think about high-end gaming. You could have a stonking fast CPU but it will be crap without the fast RAM, GPU, HD, bus (motherboard).

 

I think the PS3 is better. Thats just me. i have always liked playstation better than xbox.

 

"Faster"? They would be the same when it comes to clock speed for the CPU, given that the Xenon runs at 3.2Ghz, and the Cell that will be present in the Playstation 3 will apparently also run at 3.2Ghz.

However, if you really want to get into the argument of which one is more powerful, prepare to be blown away by the fact that there's NO single number you can use to compare two whole friggin' computers. Remember, there are thousands of different factors that could affect performance just within the hardware itself, and then it also relies upon the software being used. With such a big subject, such a debate is only an invitation for console fanboys to start hurling un-backable claims and flames at each other, as things get uglier and uglier.

 

You've convinced me.




Although maybe you should actually wait till you know it's "released" before making up your mind?

 

It's definitely going to be a PS3 for me. Why? The games... Has anyone played Warhawk for the PS1? I love it so much and knowing that the sequel will be a PS3 exclsusive seals the deal, even more so if it really does play both PS1 and PS2 games w/out needing a hard drive or an update. If I want Tekken, I need a PS3.

I can always pick up a 360 later on, when the price drops and there are mnore games I want.

That being said, I'm also going for a Revolution; I'm a huge Nintendo fan and love my Gamecube. I couldn't wait for them to be released so I bought a Japanese one and modded it to play both Japanese and American games. I almost bought a modded Panasonic Q.

 

Yeah, so far the 360 is the only testable system as per "speed"

What do you mean by speed?
Just because a P4 is rated at 3.0GHz does that make it "faster" or better able to load games in a timely manor as a 2.4GHz A64?
So far the PS3 as well as N revolution are both paper releases.
I'm not gonna spend my cash on any system until it proves that it is better at playing games than my PC.
Any inovation for the console usually makes it to the PC if it wasn't developed for the PC market first.
So I'll give them all a pass.
This coming from someone who hasn't owned a console since the NES circa 1987.

I have played PS2 and Xbox and have to say that I liked both.

 

finally someone talking some sense. who needs a stupid (albiet cheap) console when you can have a pc! the infinitely better device which allows for better online play, modding, and not to mention the tens of thousands of computer programs out there and the big reason we all love the computer, the billions of porn sites. now the fact that a xbox360-equivlant computer is like $4,000 and the 360 is a mere $500, it is tempting to forgo the computer, but if someone hacked a 360 to run windows or linux...

 

The economics of producing gorgeous games may catch up with developers before Microsoft win the console war. Artificial Sexiness doesn't come for free - it's possible that hardware capabilities will overtake realistic software capabilities for all but the biggest houses in the near future. "Faster" will become irrelevant. Innovation & originality is what developers need to focus on in this gen to keep competition alive.

/I remember a reviewer comparing a game (I forget which) to a car. This game looked like a shiny new Ferrari on the outside. It had the right colour paint, the right badges, the right proportions and everything. Beautiful. But when you go to sit inside it you realise the interior has actually come from Ikea and then when you start the engine you notice it's a 1.1L Rover K Series under the bonnet. Ah, it's not a real Ferrari, it's some 2-bit kit car made by a Kwik Fit centre. Nice to look at but horrible to drive. This analogy always pops into my head when I see reviewers giving the likes of cod2 & aoe3 85-95% scores. Prettier isn't enough anymore: nfs_39, aoe3, FIFA_2192se, most of the 360 launch lineup ...wake me up when it's over.

^speaking in general, but the point is "faster" is only worth so much, for now the question really is a subjective "which is most fun?"

 

I'm in for both here. Of course you have to consider game quality when choosing. However, DivineSin also has a very good point. When the PS3 developers start making 40 gig large games it will be literally impossible for the competition to match that.

The videogame market runs on expectations. Example: Once GTA3 came out gamers expected other games similar to GTA3 in genre (like True Crimes) to be as large, and as vast with as many things to do. Also, they expected the sequals to be bigger, better, and have more content, which they did. If the devs came out and said Vice City was half the size of Liberty City and the game length was a lot shorter, do you think it would have been as succesful?

That being said, Once the first 40 gigabyte blockbuster game (GTA6 maybe) comes out, anything less will appear to be behind the curve. Why substitute the ultra big PS3 game for another 15 hour FPS on the Xbox 360, regardless of which one has better graphics.

I'm not a fanboy or anything, and I know for a fact both systems are gonna be awesome and offer a lot of content for everyone, but the technology DOES play a major role when people are choosing to buy one over the other.

It's just like PCs. Would you go out now and build a new Socket A rig? Obviously you're gonna want to buy the stuff that's gonna be ahead of the curve for the longest time, and the one definite componet that proves PS3 will be ahead of the curve and ready for the next-gen of media format is the Blu-Ray drive.

 

I agree with you 100%. I don't need to play ANOTHER WWII shooter. Yeah, CoD2 is fun..but really, what is it but more of the same? How many crappy riced out Hondas will I get to drive in NFS:Serisouly Crappy Racing 5!

 

A so-called '40 GB game' might be nice to play, but if it takes 15 months to develop a game to fill 5GB, how many more months of development do you think a 40GB game will take?

 

And what do you fill 40gig with these days? Many games have game engines that take care of the cut scenes now, with multiple pieces of FMV being a less common thing.

 

Well that's the whole point. You don't really know what the game developers would fill it with, bringing us back to creative freedom and the possibility to do things no one has thought of. It would take longer to make, no question there. Also, 40 gigs of crap is still crap, but think of the potential.

You can also assume that a large portion of game development is spent on figuring out how to cram their game onto 5 gigs. Making decisions on what to keep and what to cut, and re working things to make sense in terms of contunuity. From that perspective, it is possible to imagine that game developement could actually be quicker when you don't have to worry about running out of space and deciding whats worth keeping. One might say "well thats what multi-disc games are for" but you also have to take into account that the cost of producing 2 CDs for one game would double the costs of media to print it on. When you consider that millions of copies are going to be made, you're talking about a lot of money.