Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Dark6, 19 Oct 2005.
I can't find a straight answer anywhere else. Just to set things straight, which is faster?
Download the Podcast on it if you have an i-Pod..if not then its hard to get the true answer on how powerful the PS3 is although i think its clear it is more powerful.
Yea, i dont understand how anyone can argue that a system thats probably going to ATLEAST cost a 100 dollars more, wont be faster than a system released a year earlier..
there really is no answer at the moment, anyone who says they KNOW which is faster is probably talking out of the wrong hole tbh
both ms and sony are distorting their specs so its just a case of wait and see
Its not about speed, its about the Architecture
We've all seen this in the AMDvsIntel Ghz race!
Who cares? Which has better games??
although one'll have the speed advantage they're not gonna bring out games that use the full potential of the console for a couple of years... as I and others have said go for the one with the better games. I'm getting an xbox360 to start... then a ps3 when its cheaper just for mgs4...
Finally someone using some sense. Yeah, looks and speed are nice, but if games suck it's a $400 pile of crap (until someone hacks it to make it a normal PC)
And whoever said the ipod/podcast thing, you don't need an ipod to listen to podcast, just itunes (and some sites let you get them independantly)
and that is my say in the matter.
The PS3 could eat the Xbox360 for breakfast, but it needs to match it for games quality. As a number of sites have already pointed out, the raw power of both devices isn't completely clear at the moment and I wouldn't be surprised if Sony change/tweak the PS3 before launch. At the moment, the Xbox360 looks extremely good based on the sheer grunt it has, and the way this has been utilised by some potentially excellent launch titles. What Sony have to do therefore is make sure they launch their console with a similar line up of classy looking games, and not the sort of dross that the PS2 launched with.
Both systems are multiprocessor/core, so speed is not really an indication of power in this case. Both systems are likely to have both strong and weak areas in their designs, so looking at speed alone isn't a measure of the overall "power" of the system.
And after all, like our beloved Bindi said, all that matters is what the games are like. Both systems will have games that rock and games that suck; it's the number of rockin' games (or the rock:suck ratio, if you will) that matters.
Someone who works out this ratio is therefore a... rocksucker?
I'll get me coat.
Yup, a rocksuckerist. You can do degree courses in rocksuckerism.
While i look at both speed of the system, the quality of the system, the size of the disks, and the games. I have to say that the games are NOT the deciding matter for me. Since there are alot more backers behing blu-ray and even forrester research has declared that blu-ray will probably be the winner in the format war, i will be using my ps3 for not only games, but movies, meaning i wont have to buy a seperate HD player.
Not only this, but disk size is a BIG important factor for me, this shows me how long and content filled games can get. It would take about 4-8 dvd disks to equal the size of blu-ray single and dual-layer (last time i checked they said it could go to quad layer i belive). Not to mention that blu-rays transfer rates are twice the speed of a dvd-drive (1x blu-ray vs 16x dvd).
You cant just look at the games (Untill the launch of both systems of course xD) , theres nothing to do before a console launch but look and compare to both systems. So saying 'just look at the games' is a poor choice of words when one system has no games and the other system barely has launch games yet. Considering the xbox had some pretty crappy games (atleast crappy, as i wouldnt play any of them. There of course good to others). The playstation games (across ps1 and ps2) have been equal quality, so i believe they'll be that or greater quality.
If you were just looking at the games, we would still be in snes and genesis territory, i mean...why would there be any reason to have a new system? Oh wait, i forgot..better hardware usually equals better games.
Um. No... I think the point is that if you are going to have to choose between two consoles, the games ARE the deciding factor. I'd find it hard to imagine many people bar simpletons would choose a games console based on which one has more video memory or RAM. I don't play my PS2 too much, but I do play my Xbox alot, based solely on the quality and type of games available. I sold my Gamecube after Zelda for the same reason. I've kept my SNES, GBA, Dreamcast, N64, all because of the games - otherwise I would have sold them for better hardware.
I think you've made quite a few subjective statements there about merits of individual systems.
As for the Blu-Ray issue. Meh. Since most games these days struggle to fill a 4.7gb DVD, I can't really see having all that capacity for a game to be that big a deal. Certainly, as Sony seem keen, if the machine is to be a nexus for in-home entertainment, then the Blu_ray issue might be a factor. But for games, I'm not going to sweat too much that my new Xbox360 doesn't support them.
Going back to original point. There's so little to choose between the power of both next gen consoles, that Bindi is correct in suggesting one looks at the games, and makes a choice based on individual tastes - certainly raw processing umph is not going to be as much of an issue as the chasm between the Xbox and PS2 is.
For one, i never said i was choosing my system on the specs alone, i said if you were comparing systems right now, you couldnt compare games, you had to compare specs. You cant compare games right now because..gasp..there are -none-. I chose the ps3 on a few facts..1)The xbox sucks and it had horrible games, why would the 360 be different? 2)I'm a partial sony fanboy and sony's system -looks- better, and already has a few franchises that normally come on sony's system.
Oh, and games barely fill dvd's now adays because..wow..there graphics are based on a 5 year old technology. I have a F.E.A.R install right now that is 5gigs and thats just a first person shooter. Could you imagine graphics that compare to F.E.A.R, with a few hours of CG FMV's, and a 100+ hour RPG? These big disks sizes allow for more content as well, maybe they'll start adding 'Making of' and little extra's like that to the consoles games (F.E.A.R. did, i find it a great addition to a great game).
But on topic, did you even read my post? In my second paragraph i said, and i quote "You cant just look at the games (Untill the launch of both systems of course xD) , theres nothing to do before a console launch but look and compare to both systems.". Again, theres nothing to do right now but compare the systems on there specs alone.
So when deciding on which Games console to buy, you don't take the games into consideration ?
I find that very odd indeed.
i think you should save the arguing until both have been released because then you will all truly no instead of making predictions and yes there is no point in buying a console if you dont like the games and just because you think its more powerful
I'm getting the first to be released... then converting it to linux when available... hell they managed on an xbox i'm sure they'll do it on xbox360
The question that this thread posed was "Which is faster? Xbox 360 or PS3?"
Not, "Which is going to have the best games?"
So the majority of the above is just spam
I reckon the PS3 will be faster.
Separate names with a comma.