NPD Sales Results for November 2009

[lgestle]

And the proof PS3 is the more powerful console, is expert witness John Carmack. It's not a debatable point. Since the launch, we've known PS3 is more powerful than X360 on paper. For the first year or so, X360 games looked better because nobody was doing much with the exotic PS3 hw. It's a cakewalk for a PC developer to jump into making X360 games. You need to have the skills to make PS3 games. ND are finally getting 0% idle time across all SPEs. It's still evolving. PS3 games in 2011-12 will look better than GoW3.

Was this the quote you were looking for? If not provide a source. Personally I think they are roughly equal (cpu to PS3, GPU to Xbox 360). However, I'm not stating these opinions as fact (ie John Carmack, non debatable topic). I notice you lack providing any sources, unless your proved otherwise and then utilize these to shift the blame.

They are both great systems, but the bias you use to take rumors/opinion and state them as fact is ridiculous.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220530
"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that.

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said.


Or

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6215286.html

Then, Carmack talked about developing for consoles for the first time with Rage. He feels that the PS3 has more processing power but that the 360 is easier to program for. "I know Sony fans might get mad, but all the consoles are so much better than they once were, and are closer together now," he explained diplomatically. As a sop, he said that the 360's space constraints caused a lot of extra work having to go back and streamline textures for the platform.

 

[Stereophile]

I googled "carmack ps3 more powerful" and got a million hits.

The short interview revealed once again Carmack's preference for the Xbox 360, but also a respect for the PS3's power.

"They are both powerful systems that are going to make excellent game platforms, but I have a bit of a preference for the 360’s symmetric CPU architecture and excellent development tools," he said. "The PS3 will have a bit more peak power, but it will be easier to exploit the available power on the 360. Our next major title is being focused towards simultaneous release on 360, PS3, and PC."

This quote was from almost 4 years ago. The first party developers are obviously putting that extra power to use now. How else can it exceed what the "superior" Xenos has accomplished in gaming graphics ? Actually if it's programmed correctly, the RSX is very close to Xenos. That's paraphrasing Criterion, "very close in performance" is a quote. The main advantage for Xenos is unified shading. It's always firing on all cylinders. But if the 3d scene is made to exploit RSX and Cell, the PS3 can obviously handle more of a workload. The result speaks for itself.

Have you read his comments on BD vs DVD ? Hint: He favors BD. PS3 Rage will possibly have a megatexture exceeding the PC's in quality. It would take a multi-disc "SE" edition to match it Carmack said. Oh and id said X360's textures on Rage will be blurry and less detailed due to compression and having far less space available. The original MT is over 2 TB! They already admitted X360 is to blame for them having to make the world much smaller than initially conceived.

 

[BladeVenom]

At the three year mark, PS3 is doing better than the 360 did after three years, http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php

Since the price cuts, worldwide the PS3 has been dominating the 360 since August. http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php

Now that the price of the PS3 is reasonable, it should keep outselling the 360 on a monthly basis.

The only reason some fans think the 360 is doing well is because it had a one year head start.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Not that 'RSX is a 7600GT' line that was thoroughly debunked by game developers at B3D ? RSX has more computational power than a 7800GTX. Descriptively, it's closer to a bandwidth limited 7800/7900 than a 7600GT.
It's the high end Geforce 7 chip compromised for 720p. I'll remind you Xenos' rops and memory interface were cut down too.

And the proof PS3 is the more powerful console, is expert witness John Carmack. It's not a debatable point. Since the launch, we've known PS3 is more powerful than X360 on paper. For the first year or so, X360 games looked better because nobody was doing much with the exotic PS3 hw. It's a cakewalk for a PC developer to jump into making X360 games. You need to have the skills to make PS3 games. ND are finally getting 0% idle time across all SPEs. It's still evolving. PS3 games in 2011-12 will look better than GoW3.

No, I'm sorry but it wasn't debunked, and I demonstrated it for you complete with links and hardware specifications not TWO WEEKS AGO on these very forums. That you choose to ignore that fact is pure DOGMATISM on your part. What you are doing is worshiping at the Church of Sony, which is every bit as absurd as worshiping at the feet of Microsoft, Nintendo or anybody else.

It is a matter of fact, as noted by countless reviewers from many different magazines, sites, etc who do reviews, that the MAJORITY of cross platform games look better on 360 than they do on PS3. That is *fact* and it continues to be the case to this day, as evidenced by the still fresh Bayonetta among many others. On a few cases, the PS3 version has been the better looking version, as some have said about Dragon Age. What does this tell you? Equal power, different strengths.

And as I showed you in that previous thread-where I note that your intellectual cowardice never did reply again after being proven wrong-RSX is far closer to a 7600GT than it is to a 7800, much less a 7900, no matter how much you wish that were true:

7800 is clocked at 430Mhz, 7600 at 560Mhz, RSX at 550Mhz. The reason RSX and 7600 are clocked higher is to try and make up for some of the bus bandwidth deficiencies versus a 7800 (RSX and 7600 are both 128 bit bus devices, 7800 is 256). RSX has a total memory throughput of 22.4GB/s, 7600 has a throughput of 22.4GB/s (sounding familiar?), while the 7800GTX has a throughput of 38.4GB/S, about 75% greater than RSX or a 7600GT can muster. FlexIO, meanwhile, offers only 20GB/s Read and 15GB/s write, which, if the coders can get the RSX to about 90% efficiency (possible, but unlikely in most scenarios), they can saturate. To continue, a 7900GTX has a bandwidth of 51.2GB/s, more than *double* what RSX is capable of.

References: 7800 series GPU's, RSX Specs

PS3 is a perfectly capable games machine, as is Xbox 360. Your need to assert that one unilaterally trumps the other amounts to little more than fanboy c**k-waving, something which is simply not justifiable. PS3 and 360 each have games that look phenomenal (none of them rendering in 1080p, many not even 720p), and that's really all that matters.

Seriously, you're ridiculous the way you come across. Neither system has a decisive advantage over the other, neither is cutting edge technology, neither is anything other than a decent games machine running on what is, by today's standards OLD, OUTDATED tech. In the end, as long as you enjoy the games, that's all that matters.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

At the three year mark, PS3 is doing better than the 360 did after three years, http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php

Since the price cuts, worldwide the PS3 has been dominating the 360 since August. http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php

Now that the price of the PS3 is reasonable, it should keep outselling the 360 on a monthly basis.

The only reason some fans think the 360 is doing well is because it had a one year head start.

No doubt PS3's doing better in its third year than 360 did in its-of course, the PS3 has also dropped in price by nearly 50% from its original launch price.

Regardless, it's erroneous to say PS3 has been "dominating" 360, more like it's been beating it in the short term in the US (yet not in November, which I find utterly puzzling; I thought sure it would have been tops in the US for November, so I'm surprised it wasn't) and catching up a bit in Europe. It's always dominated 360 in Japan, but did anybody expect anything different?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I googled "carmack ps3 more powerful" and got a million hits.



This quote was from almost 4 years ago. The first party developers are obviously putting that extra power to use now. How else can it exceed what the "superior" Xenos has accomplished in gaming graphics ? Actually if it's programmed correctly, the RSX is very close to Xenos. That's paraphrasing Criterion, "very close in performance" is a quote. The main advantage for Xenos is unified shading. It's always firing on all cylinders. But if the 3d scene is made to exploit RSX and Cell, the PS3 can obviously handle more of a workload. The result speaks for itself.

Have you read his comments on BD vs DVD ? Hint: He favors BD. PS3 Rage will possibly have a megatexture exceeding the PC's in quality. It would take a multi-disc "SE" edition to match it Carmack said. Oh and id said X360's textures on Rage will be blurry and less detailed due to compression and having far less space available. The original MT is over 2 TB! They already admitted X360 is to blame for them having to make the world much smaller than initially conceived.

Very close in performance is what virtually EVERY developer has said about PS3 vs 360 as an overall system. It's what *I* have been telling you ever since the specs on the systems were announced. It's what a comparison of games across both consoles will clearly illustrate right up from launch to *Today*. 360 and PS3 are EQUALS overall.

You seem to think Cell is a GPU--it isn't. What Cell can do to help the GPU is perform tasks like physics, audio processing, general purpose instructions, etc. You may also have missed the fact that Cell and Xenon are based off the *exact same architecture*? The primary difference is that Xenon has 3 general purpose cores, Cell has 1, but Cell has 7 (5-6 usable, depending on the application) SPU's, which are ONLY good for doing floating point operations. That's all well and good-floating point is useful in a lot of ways for a lot of things.

The biggest limiting factor for both systems is that they are constrained by a lack of RAM and by a narrow system bus (128 bit, hello 1999!).

 

[lgestle]

So in one thread you state

And the proof PS3 is the more powerful console, is expert witness John Carmack. It's not a debatable point.[/B].

Then you state

I googled "carmack ps3 more powerful" and got a million hits.


This quote was from almost 4 years ago. The first party developers are obviously putting that extra power to use now. How else can it exceed what the "superior" Xenos has accomplished in gaming graphics ? Actually if it's programmed correctly, the RSX is very close to Xenos. That's paraphrasing Criterion, "very close in performance" is a quote. The main advantage for Xenos is unified shading. It's always firing on all cylinders. But if the 3d scene is made to exploit RSX and Cell, the PS3 can obviously handle more of a workload. The result speaks for itself.

Have you read his comments on BD vs DVD ? Hint: He favors BD. PS3 Rage will possibly have a megatexture exceeding the PC's in quality. It would take a multi-disc "SE" edition to match it Carmack said. Oh and id said X360's textures on Rage will be blurry and less detailed due to compression and having far less space available. The original MT is over 2 TB! They already admitted X360 is to blame for them having to make the world much smaller than initially conceived.

So where exactly is the proof that John Carmack said it was the more powerful console? If you would have ready any of those million hits it would have stated what I quoted. The limitation on the xbox 360 is the media, not the GPU. Within those same quotes they even mentioned they were having performance issues with the PS3, but hoped/plan to get those resolved by release.

My point is your state you opinion and rumors as fact, as you cleary have not made your point and it's very much debatable. Every developer you listed said they were close in performance. That is the point but your bias decides otherwise.

Using the number of hits to base a fact is pretty comical.

 

[BladeVenom]

No doubt PS3's doing better in its third year than 360 did in its-of course, the PS3 has also dropped in price by nearly 50% from its original launch price.

Regardless, it's erroneous to say PS3 has been "dominating" 360, more like it's been beating it in the short term in the US (yet not in November, which I find utterly puzzling; I thought sure it would have been tops in the US for November, so I'm surprised it wasn't) and catching up a bit in Europe. It's always dominated 360 in Japan, but did anybody expect anything different?

November's 360 sales were probably helped by the fact that a million consoles were banned from Live. So a lot people bought replacements.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

November's 360 sales were probably helped by the fact that a million consoles were banned from Live. So a lot people bought replacements.

That may be the case, but there's really no way to verify it, so it's just conjecture. Still, I don't think that's an *unreasonable* guess. We'll just never know for sure

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You know what's weird? My little nametag thingy here says I've been on [H] for 4.5 years, but I've actually been here since 2000. I actually bought a Dreamcast off somebody (still have it, too!), so I dunno what the deal is with the age counter

 

[Mac[X-D]]

the thing is the 360 sales numbers will always have a asterix besides them since we will never really know how many people bought more then one due to a failure, or being banned from xbl.

of those apparent 1 million bans earlier how many consoles were actually banned and how many of those people went out and bought new 360's we won't know so those two things alone skew 360 sales numbers overall.

i am not saying one is better then the other i have both and like both consoles, but i am sure a lot of people bought more than one 360 in comparison to the PS3 because of bans and hardware failures.

 

[Psychotext]

Given there are only really about 2m 360 owners in the US (who continually re-buy their systems because of bannings and hardware failures)... I must say the software sales are phenomenal.

Buying at least 2 copies of MW2 each showed some real dedication.

 

[Rash]

Given there are only really about 2m 360 owners in the US (who continually re-buy their systems because of bannings and hardware failures)... I must say the software sales are phenomenal.

Buying at least 2 copies of MW2 each showed some real dedication.

lol and dot forget all 2 million were online at the same time the other week aswell!!

 

[Psychotext]

Addicts!

 

[BladeVenom]

Given there are only really about 2m 360 owners in the US (who continually re-buy their systems because of bannings and hardware failures)... I must say the software sales are phenomenal.

Buying at least 2 copies of MW2 each showed some real dedication.

They probably just forgot to take the disc out when they sold their banned 360.

The 360 is also known for scratching up disks.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Notice how Stereophile doesn't come back after being shown in hard numbers how RSX is roughly equivalent to a 7600GT? He's done the same thing in at least one other thread that I know of, only to reappear in another thread later, spamming the "it's more powerful than a 7800GTX!" bullshit again.

Talk about a dyed-in-the-wool dogmatist. Jeez.

 

[JohnleMVP]

The 360 is also known for scratching up disks.

Only by people who juggle there systems while playing and don't install their games.

 

[Rash]

Notice how Stereophile doesn't come back after being shown in hard numbers how RSX is roughly equivalent to a 7600GT? He's done the same thing in at least one other thread that I know of, only to reappear in another thread later, spamming the "it's more powerful than a 7800GTX!" bullshit again.

Talk about a dyed-in-the-wool dogmatist. Jeez.

while hard numbers may show similar shit the ps3 still blows a 7600gt with a quad core cpu out of the water in the graphics department, and its up there and in many cases better than 360 performance.
You get the a similar story with the 360 with fanboys stating the 360s gpu was equivalent to a x1900xtx.....bull fuckin shit

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

while hard numbers may show similar shit the ps3 still blows a 7600gt with a quad core cpu out of the water in the graphics department, and its up there and in many cases better than 360 performance.
You get the a similar story with the 360 with fanboys stating the 360s gpu was equivalent to a x1900xtx.....bull fuckin shit

But the PS3 doesn't have the overhead of running a full scale OS or all the hundreds of processes that run in the background. Write a game straight to the hardware of a PC with a quad core processor and a 7600GT, and you'll come out with something that is on par with PS3, easy. Same with 360. It's certainly true that 360 fanboys also went overboard guesstimating the power of 360's GPU--but as far as I've seen, NOBODY on this forum has been so rabid about the topic as Stereophile, nor so willing to utterly ignore evidence, facts and indisputable technical specifications as he has been.

As for PS3-360 performance, be realistic: the two systems are 95% the same in the graphical fidelity department, across the board. Each has a few gems that are optimized purely for their platform, and each claims these gems couldn't have been done on the other. It's doubtful that any game released so far on either platform couldn't have been done on the other.

 

[Stereophile]

Notice how Stereophile doesn't come back after being shown in hard numbers how RSX is roughly equivalent to a 7600GT? He's done the same thing in at least one other thread that I know of, only to reappear in another thread later, spamming the "it's more powerful than a 7800GTX!" bullshit again.

RSX is not equivalent to a 7600GT except for # of ROPs (8) and memory interface bus width (128bit). Stuff that is less important when the target resolution is only 720p. It's got more shading power than a 7800GTX.

If you think I'm making this up, you never read the thread I linked you on B3D. That's simply a fact. An RSX is computationally more powerful than a 7800GTX. It's got the same amount of vertex and pixel shaders, with more hw optimizations, on a smaller process, at a higher clock speed. Read the thread. The topic on that page was answering the question is RSX closer to a 7600 or 7800. The consensus was undoubtedly closer to a 7800, and better in some ways. Claiming RSX is only like a 7600 in performance betrays your ignorance on the subject.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You're a rube. I don't live on this board.

RSX is not equivalent to a 7600GT except for # of ROPs (8) and memory interface bus width (128bit). Stuff that is less important when the target resolution is only 720p. It's got more shading power than a 7800GTX.

If you think I'm making this up, you never read the thread I linked you on B3D. That's simply a fact. An RSX is computationally more powerful than a 7800GTX. It's got the same amount of vertex and pixel shaders, with more hw optimizations, on a smaller process, at a higher clock speed. Read the thread. The topic on that page was answering the question is RSX closer to a 7600 or 7800. The concensus was undoubtedly closer to a 7800, and better in some ways. Claiming RSX is only like a 7600 in performance betrays your ignorance on the subject.

Sorry, but I've provided sources to verify, you've provided nothing but CLAIMS and the link to another *forum* as if that were some kind of evidence. It's not. I've been a Systems Engineer for 15 YEARS-I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, you're standing in a big, stinky pile of ignorance, PRETENDING you know anything.

 

[Deleted member 143938]

Sorry, but I've provided sources to verify, you've provided nothing but CLAIMS and the link to another *forum* as if that were some kind of evidence. It's not. I've been a Systems Engineer for 15 YEARS-I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, you're standing in a big, stinky pile of ignorance, PRETENDING you know anything.

Someone has anger problems... for all the wrong reasons. Get over it, they're just gaming systems...

 

[Stereophile]

Sorry, but I've provided sources to verify, you've provided nothing but CLAIMS and the link to another *forum* as if that were some kind of evidence. It's not. I've been a Systems Engineer for 15 YEARS-I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, you're standing in a big, stinky pile of ignorance, PRETENDING you know anything.

instant response
good thing I didn't go leave my house for six hours or you'd be saying I ran off. ROFL

Systems engineer for what company ? Do you work in the GPU or videogame hw or games industry ? I doubt it. Or you wouldn't be trying to downplay an RSX equating it to a 7600.

This post sums it up most succinctly, but I'll quote some more since you're too lazy to read what the people programming the game consoles said about it.

The thing is it depends on the workload. Focus on bandwidth consumption (blends and AA with just basic shading per pixel) => 7600ish. Focus on internal computational throughput (lots of maths per pixel, many textures per pass) => 7800ish.

Now which category do you think modern games fall under ? You keep screaming bandwidth as if that is the only or most important measure of a GPU. In a closed box running 720p, it's not as big of a deal. Xenos only has 8 rops too. Oh no. I guess that means it's only an HD2600, not the high end part. The people running into issues on multiplatform games are simply trying to dump their 360/PC code onto PS3. It's been said countless times, you won't get as good of results.

The 7900 has the greater fillrate, but RSX has the greater computational power. You can easily contrive a clear victory for either, but the practical differences won't be huge -- that's really what I was trying to say.

RSX has 24 pixel pipes and a 128 bit memory bus which puts it somewhere in between the Geforce 7600 and Geforce 7800 architctures. Due to the narrow local memory bus it falls far short of the 7800's bandwidth of course, but likewise calling it a Geforce 7600 (which has only 12 pixel pipes instead of 24) is harshly downplaying its capabilities.

Dont know why people would want to call it a 7600, it's not. I guess if you think the bus is more important than the rest of the chip, you could, but clearly that's not the case.

And let's not forget that most games will use RSX on the PS3 with a relatively low resolution (for PC standards anyway) of 1280 x 720.
Even with 2xAA, that bandwidth resource seems balanced enough for the overall system needs.

in short, the RSX is a crippled NV47 that's been tweaked for a closed boxed envionment. it's supposed to have a boost in cashe over the standard NV47s / GF 7800

GF 7800 GTX: 8 vertex shaders, 24 pixel-shader-pipelines, 16 pixel pipelines/rops, 256-bus

RSX: 8 vertex shaders, 24 pixel-shader-pipelines, 8 pixel pipelines/rops, 128 bit bus

I'll trust moderators and people with 3000+ posts on that board over you.

 

[Netrat33]

Was this the quote you were looking for? If not provide a source. Personally I think they are roughly equal (cpu to PS3, GPU to Xbox 360). However, I'm not stating these opinions as fact (ie John Carmack, non debatable topic). I notice you lack providing any sources, unless your proved otherwise and then utilize these to shift the blame.

They are both great systems, but the bias you use to take rumors/opinion and state them as fact is ridiculous.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=220530
"The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," John Carmack told Edge. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that.

"The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360. The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," he said.


Or

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6215286.html

Then, Carmack talked about developing for consoles for the first time with Rage. He feels that the PS3 has more processing power but that the 360 is easier to program for. "I know Sony fans might get mad, but all the consoles are so much better than they once were, and are closer together now," he explained diplomatically. As a sop, he said that the 360's space constraints caused a lot of extra work having to go back and streamline textures for the platform.

Stereophile, this post right here is pretty funny to ignore after seeing how you're using Carmack.

But yea, the RSX I always recalled was compared closer to a 7800 and the xbox closer to an x1800xt (I think it was even an ATI rep who said that)

 

[legcramp]

Get this, those MW2 numbers do not include the MW2 360 bundles.. which MS said they sold a ton of.

haha, my cousin purchased one a few weeks ago...... it was a pretty good deal for an elite + the extra wireless controller and the game. Not bad at all.

 

[Stereophile]

Stereophile, this post right here is pretty funny to ignore after seeing how you're using Carmack.

That quote from him is in regard to the Rage engine. When he says Cell is slower, he means the main PPE since there is only one. Contrast that with 3 identical PPE like cores in X360. He'll be the first to admit his engine is not built specifically for those SPEs. They're patching it in as they go along. That's always been his complaint with PS3. Similar to Valve's situation. He's coding single thread X86 for decades. He's not dropping the whole ball of wax to make his engine built around the Cell processor. (Which is necessary if you want to take advantage of its superior performance.)

I'll try and dig up some more. I'm really shocked people are questioning that. Carmack is not the only dev to say, theoretically, the PS3 is more powerful, but it's harder to use. The codebase continues to evolve heavily. Third parties are just now getting comparable tools to what MS had since day one. Programming a PS3 is in its infancy compared to the known entity of the X360.

The other time, when he said PS3 has a bit more peak power, it was an answer to the general question on the systems' relative potential.

And Rage isn't a PS3 specific game. It's a multiplatform game. Not that I think Rage will be a poor port, they did take into account the PS3 when designing the game. In fact, I'll repeat, they said Rage will be 60fps on all platforms and that PS3 will have better textures than X360, possibly even the PC.

And that quote about the rasterizer is interesting, I remember when it was new, but it's not directly relevent anyways, because he's giving you inside info early in the development process. Rage is a year out, and that quote is 6+ months old. You won't know in the gold game the rasterizer was slower with their original implementation. They'll go around. They don't have Direct x and MS certification holding them back.

It's often been said that one of the many advantages of working on console is that you have a fixed set of hardware to work with, that you can "write to the metal" and code to the "bleeding edge" of the spec. However, our sources suggest that this simply isn't an option for Xbox 360 developers. Microsoft doesn't allow it.

Suspicions were first aroused by a tweet by EA Vancouver's Jim Hejl who revealed that addressing the Xenos GPU on 360 involves using the DirectX APIs, which in turn incurs a cost on CPU resources. Hejl later wrote in a further message that he'd written his own API for manual control of the GPU ring, incurring little or no hit to the main CPU.
"Cert would hate it tho," he added mysteriously.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-directx-360-performance-blog-entry

 

[Psychotext]

Jesus... does every single one of these threads have to turn into this? It is really so important to you all that you have to spend so much time trying to one up each other?

As long as your chosen console has games you enjoy playing, what difference does it make what someone else thinks about it? Along the same lines, why should you care what someone else thinks of their own chosen console? It's pathetic.

 

[obs]

Console wars are so 3 years ago.

 

[snaggletooth]

Heh heh, I personally know more stupid engineers than forum posters.

Of course, this thread happens once a month and was even more entertaining when Technoob was around.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

instant response
good thing I didn't go leave my house for six hours or you'd be saying I ran off. ROFL

Systems engineer for what company ? Do you work in the GPU or videogame hw or games industry ? I doubt it. Or you wouldn't be trying to downplay an RSX equating it to a 7600.

This post sums it up most succinctly, but I'll quote some more since you're too lazy to read what the people programming the game consoles said about it.



Now which category do you think modern games fall under ? You keep screaming bandwidth as if that is the only or most important measure of a GPU. In a closed box running 720p, it's not as big of a deal. Xenos only has 8 rops too. Oh no. I guess that means it's only an HD2600, not the high end part. The people running into issues on multiplatform games are simply trying to dump their 360/PC code onto PS3. It's been said countless times, you won't get as good of results.














I'll trust moderators and people with 3000+ posts on that board over you.

You're still quoting FORUM POSTS, not a single expert, not a single hardware specification, not a single MENTION about anything pertaining to the PHYSICAL REALITY of what RSX is. You do this for a clear and simple reason: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I've worked for numerous companies over the years, including some of the world's biggest firms performing high end rendering on high end server farms. Do I design GPU's? No. Do I know a thing or two about them? Yeah, I do. More than you can claim, CLEARLY.

What you are is a DROOLING FANBOY. I have qualified every position I've taken with specifications and clear reference to HARD FACTS. You reference forum posts.

The bottom line remains precisely the same: PS3 and 360 are BOTH old tech, not REMOTELY cutting edge. And no matter how much you WISH it weren't so, Bandwidth matters and Shaders matter. A LOT.

RSX sits somewhere in between a 7600 and a 7800, leaning more closely to the 7600 end. It's sole advantage is that it can be addressed directly and doesn't have to deal with the overhead of a bulky Operating System.

Deal with it, fanboy.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You sound like a total dick.

I'd rather sound like a total dick who presents FACTS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS than a drooling fanboy who can't find anything more concrete than *forum posts*.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Console wars are so 3 years ago.

Not if you're Stereophile. Of course, that's how fanboys are-they're unable to admit that their platform of choice is simply OLD, OUTDATED TECH, that it's performance relative to its competition is a 95% wash and that any game that could be done on 360 could be done on PS3, and vice versa.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Heh heh, I personally know more stupid engineers than forum posters.

Of course, this thread happens once a month and was even more entertaining when Technoob was around.

I guarantee you don't know a *single* stupid engineer . Lacking in social graces, perhaps, but stupid? Not a chance.

 

[BladeVenom]

Only by people who juggle there systems while playing and don't install their games.

The 360 has been proven to scratch discs without moving the system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=513I87Evjuw&feature=related
The 360 is really that bad. It's the worst most unreliable POS in the history of gaming.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I did the math when the PS3 first outsold the x360 and it would take like 50+ months at the then current sales rate for it to catch up to Xbox360.........neither console will even come close to catching the Wii.........

 

[snaggletooth]

I guarantee you don't know a *single* stupid engineer . Lacking in social graces, perhaps, but stupid? Not a chance.

I stand by my original statement and will add that many also have the unfortunate superiority complex you're demonstrating for us all, right here.

They usually start backpeddling around the same time that they realize the building isn't as long as the conveyor system they designed for it.

Not a chance... lol, get over yourself.

 

[Stereophile]

RSX sits somewhere in between a 7600 and a 7800, leaning more closely to the 7600 end.

Wrong. I know the bandwidth of RSX is only 128 bit, like Xenos, I've acknowledged that all along. That's the entirety of your poor argument.

The fact RSX has the same pixel/vertex shader array as the high end chip, at a higher clock speed, with twice as much cache to prevent stalls, is more important for current gen games, than its internal bandwidth, in a closed box at 720p resolution.

You have yet to acknowledge that. Why do you call it a 7600, if it's got more shader power than a 7800 ?

And regarding which system is more powerful, many of RSX's shortcomings are compensated for by Cell. Have you heard about the PS3 version of Saboteur ?
The developers implemented a new AA technique. It's running on a single SPU, and has IQ competing with modern PC GPUs.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=55634&page=2
The X360 game has no AA. Tiling issues ?

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

PS3 vs Xbox360 fanboi fight, round 2!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
FIGHT!

 

[Psychotext]

Only round 2? You haven't been paying attention.

 

[Lord Nassirbannipal]

The constant bickering over the PS3 and 360 got really old a long time ago, because when you look at the big picture, neither of their sales have been impressive with the both of them being destroyed by the Wii in all areas: hardware, software, and profits.

They're basically battling over who's going to be a distant second. Hell, a distant fourth if you count the handhelds.