• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Which is more powerfull XBOX 360 or PS3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iron_lifter

Guest
Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, mods feel free to move it.

Only.. I read such mixed things on the internet about which is more powerfull out of the XBOX 360 and the PS3.

So, which has the more powerfull

1/ CPU processing power
2/ Graphics power

Is the cell processor really the big flop I read about or a great bit of processing power that I read elsewhere!?

Interested to hear from you guys and gals in the know ;)

Thx!
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest
on your marks, get set, :suicide: i`ll give it 5 mins before closing:rotfl:

I posted only because I read such conflicting things, I was curious to peoples opinions or any helpfull links anyone may know of. Im only interested in learning, I have no interest in starting any unfriendly debates
 

mickus66

Prominent Member
I did catch my Ps3 bench pressing 300kgs the other day. Quite impressive. Don't own a 360. Sorry.
 

Br0ken

Distinguished Member
I've also read you can't make a direct comparison because of their respective architectures, so there really isn't a definitive answer.
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest
I've also read you can't make a direct comparison because of their respective architectures, so there really isn't a definitive answer.

I think that hits what Im getting at right on the head. I dont mean for another xbox vs ps3 thread, Im more interested in the actual technology behind them and which is "meant" to be more powerfull from a graphics processing and cpu point of view

eg apparently (and this doesnt mean a great deal to me lol)

Graphics for PS3 = 75 Million Polygons Per Second
Graphics for 360 = 500 Million Polygons Per Second

That seems to me that the 360 has more power but I don't really understand it that deeply
 

Br0ken

Distinguished Member
Well in general the more polygons that a system can draw the more detailed a object can appear when displayed. So if one system can draw a tree with only 100 polygons it'll probably show the main trunk some big branches and large flat textured areas for the leaves, and if another can draw with 1 million polygons, it'd be able to draw the main trunk, the branches and the leaves individiually. Ok, so i've over simplified it but I hope it gets the point across.
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest
Well in general the more polygons that a system can draw the more detailed a object can appear when displayed. So if one system can draw a tree with only 100 polygons it'll probably show the main trunk some big branches and large flat textured areas for the leaves, and if another can draw with 1 million polygons, it'd be able to draw the main trunk, the branches and the leaves individiually. Ok, so i've over simplified it but I hope it gets the point across.

So in theory the 360 is capable of better graphics? I assume..
 

Br0ken

Distinguished Member
Do you have a link to where you read those figures? Would like to see how they got them.
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest

avolee

Prominent Member
Graphics for PS3 = 75 Million Polygons Per Second
Graphics for 360 = 500 Million Polygons Per Second

:rotfl:ebay, please, lets get serious for a momemt, they are to entirely different machines, those figures are utter rubbish, but what one machine can do, the other can do but maybe a bit different, swings and roundabouts, as long as it has the games you like and media capabilities, who cares.
 

fatfingers73

Established Member
The 360 would swing it's power brick around it's head and 'CRUSH' the PS3.

:D
 

jerryfb

Established Member

Br0ken

Distinguished Member
Ok checked those links, no idea where those numbers come from, and to be honest not really that interested :)

They are both good for reasons that'll suit the individual.
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest
:rotfl:ebay, please, lets get serious for a momemt, they are to entirely different machines, those figures are utter rubbish, but what one machine can do, the other can do but maybe a bit different, swings and roundabouts, as long as it has the games you like and media capabilities, who cares.

Just answering the question of where I got the figures from, but you're right it seems to be a muchness of a muchness
 

Patbateman69

Established Member
Oh god, this thread should go in Eurogamer or something:D

OK..Xbox 360 Vs PS3

its a bit like this

NES V Master System

Megadrive VS SNES

Saturn VS PS1

PS2 Vs Xbox Vs Gamecube VS Dreamcast

Catch my drift...it is really down to the games you want to play and depends on how much you want to play HD Movies...there's not much in it graphically at all
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest
The impresion I get and correct me if Im wrong is the 360 seems to be more of a purests games machine wheras the cell in the PS3 seems more for "general" use and I quess that is reflected in it very good DVD and blu-ray playback.

Quess Im sayin PS3 has been designed to satisfy alot of ppl, it seems to me firstly a DVD/blu-ray player....... that plays games well too. Just the impression Im getting but could be well of base.
 

avolee

Prominent Member
the thing is, m$ have designed a very good console that developers will be happy with because they are used to dealing with pc`s and the architecture is very similair to pc, sony always go the hard way and any developer will tell you it takes time to get the best from sony hardware because of the design, that said, when they do get to grips with it, the results are normally very good, otherwise sony wouldn`t be where they are now.:)
 
I

iron_lifter

Guest
LOL ha ha well, so far its all been in good spirit, just how it should be :thumbsup:
 

The Gooner

Established Member
Graphically and game play - I think COD 4 has proved that at the minnute there isnt that much difference if any to worry about which machine is more capable than the other

So it comes down to price and wants and needs - if you just want a games machine then the 360 at £199 is a good buy here http://shop.gameplay.co.uk/webstore/consolepage.asp?platform=XB360

But if you want a machine that can do other things staright from box ie Upscale SD DVDs, play HD material, browse inet (not brilliantly but good enough for what I use it for) then a PS3 might be choice and for £299 it is a cracking bit of AV kit.
 

Stinja

Distinguished Member
So, which has the more powerfull

1/ CPU processing power
2/ Graphics power

Is the cell processor really the big flop I read about or a great bit of processing power that I read elsewhere!?
Flame-bait much? :rotfl:

Graphics are very debatable, as the architecture is different.

However i will go out on a limb and say in pure processing the PS3 appears more powerful. The numbers for [email protected] and various scientific groups, which have created PS-supercomputer clusters, indicate the PS3 is capable of excellent number-crunching. When Microsoft was offered the opportunity to also have a [email protected] app for users to run they declined, apparently because it would show (in raw processing) the 360 less capable. And no i do not consider the Cell architecture a failure.

This is pretty much a moot point anyway, as from a gaming perspective both the 360 and PS3 are in the same order of magnitude for end results, and developers are going to be doing a lot of multiformat releases and will rarely spend extra resources making one version significantly better.

Thats just my opinion BTW from looking into using the PS3 for scientific research (my girlfriend is a theoretical chemistry researcher, and is always after cheap bang-for-buck computer power).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Spielberg, Shyamalan, Aronofsky, Chazelle, Eddie Murphy and Mel Gibson - all the latest movies
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom